Latest Updates:
Normal Topic C42-C43: Petroff Refutation? (Read 7135 times)
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: C42-C43: Petroff Refutation?
Reply #8 - 08/02/11 at 12:46:07
Post Tools
No thanks, don't feel like it.

Check Vigus' analysis on pages 250-251, notes to white's 10th move, note c, and have fun finding the improvements if you care to.

I've spoken about the equalizer in the Accelerated Classical on this forum before, black can just use the Pirc/Philidor structure that Roman doesn't view too highly (Rb8/b5 version). Go figure. It's only in the sharp lines that white players can get rewarded for overly ambitious black players thinking they might get to refute something.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
CaptainFuture
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 18
Location: Germany
Joined: 03/25/09
Gender: Male
Re: Petroff Refutation?
Reply #7 - 08/02/11 at 10:50:42
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 07/02/11 at 20:22:49:
punter wrote on 07/02/11 at 15:04:39:
Roman claims many things to sell his stuff. My favourite is his variation against pirc and modern which supposedly gives white winning attack but is just losing if black makes 2 accurate moves.
After seeing this I stopped bothering about his reccomendations. For sure entertaining and good for <2000 players but hopeless against someone who actually prepares his/her openings.


Roman does a great service to people that have a bunch of improvements prepared ahead of time over his stuff.

Step 1: Roman puts out a crappy recommendation in some sharp variation.

Step 2: Black players are foaming at the mouth to get to refute it when the chance comes up.

Step 3: White player gets an easy win by deviating from Roman analysis.

Ironically in the case of his Pirc recommendation his original recommendation in the sharpest line is the best one, and leads to +/- if white knows exactly where to look for the improvements later on. However, both Roman/Vigus dismissed the best critical continuation for white as being okay for black when that time comes, which can only be because they didn't really push it further to see what happens.

Similarly, black's best set-up against his recommendation is one he doesn't think highly of. However, at least Vigus correctly identified it as being fine for black.


Hello BPaulsen,

please give us the concrete lines you are writing about. That would be helpful to get more insight.

Kind Regards
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Petroff Refutation?
Reply #6 - 07/02/11 at 20:22:49
Post Tools
punter wrote on 07/02/11 at 15:04:39:
Roman claims many things to sell his stuff. My favourite is his variation against pirc and modern which supposedly gives white winning attack but is just losing if black makes 2 accurate moves.
After seeing this I stopped bothering about his reccomendations. For sure entertaining and good for <2000 players but hopeless against someone who actually prepares his/her openings.


Roman does a great service to people that have a bunch of improvements prepared ahead of time over his stuff.

Step 1: Roman puts out a crappy recommendation in some sharp variation.

Step 2: Black players are foaming at the mouth to get to refute it when the chance comes up.

Step 3: White player gets an easy win by deviating from Roman analysis.

Ironically in the case of his Pirc recommendation his original recommendation in the sharpest line is the best one, and leads to +/- if white knows exactly where to look for the improvements later on. However, both Roman/Vigus dismissed the best critical continuation for white as being okay for black when that time comes, which can only be because they didn't really push it further to see what happens.

Similarly, black's best set-up against his recommendation is one he doesn't think highly of. However, at least Vigus correctly identified it as being fine for black.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Petroff Refutation?
Reply #5 - 07/02/11 at 20:18:16
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 07/02/11 at 14:52:11:
I wonder just where one finds many people online who think the Petroff has been refuted, let alone by Roman's Openings for Lower-Rated Players #106 (or whatever). 


Grin
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
punter
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 78
Joined: 05/18/11
Re: Petroff Refutation?
Reply #4 - 07/02/11 at 15:04:39
Post Tools
Roman claims many things to sell his stuff. My favourite is his variation against pirc and modern which supposedly gives white winning attack but is just losing if black makes 2 accurate moves.
After seeing this I stopped bothering about his reccomendations. For sure entertaining and good for <2000 players but hopeless against someone who actually prepares his/her openings.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4541
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Petroff Refutation?
Reply #3 - 07/02/11 at 14:52:11
Post Tools
I wonder just where one finds many people online who think the Petroff has been refuted, let alone by Roman's Openings for Lower-Rated Players #106 (or whatever). 

Incidentally van Delft did an article for the Yearbook about 9...Bxa2 shortly after that game.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10411
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Petroff Refutation?
Reply #2 - 07/02/11 at 10:23:06
Post Tools
Zatarra wrote on 07/02/11 at 09:16:37:
What line are they referring to, and is it really something i need to study up on, or just a sideline?

5.Nc3 is certainly a line you need to study, but it's far from a refutation. Take a look at this:

Kleijn,C - Van Delft,M [C42]
NEDchT 0708 Meesterklasse KNSB (7), 2008

½-½

You might catch some of those Dzhindzhi followers with this line.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Igor
Junior Member
**
Offline


Schild und Schwert der
Partei!

Posts: 79
Joined: 04/12/09
Gender: Male
Re: Petroff Refutation?
Reply #1 - 07/02/11 at 09:37:38
Post Tools
It's the 5. Nc3 line (after 1. e4 e5; 2. Nf3 Nf6; 3. Nxe5 d6; 4. Nf3 Nxe4; 5. Nc3)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Zatarra
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 12
Joined: 02/25/11
C42-C43: Petroff Refutation?
07/02/11 at 09:16:37
Post Tools
Ive recently changed from 1 ...c5 to 1...e5 and adopted the petroff defense with successful results so far.  Its apparent I never really got the grasp of the sicilian over the years.

However, many people online telling me that one of romans tape lines renders the petroff defenseless.  Ive bought some of roman's tapes before but dont really think ill buy more of them just to see this one line.

What line are they referring to, and is it really something i need to study up on, or just a sideline?
« Last Edit: 07/17/11 at 02:56:25 by Smyslov_Fan »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo