doefmat wrote on 04/20/20 at 07:48:50:

Okay, but we expect the draw rate to be zero in bullet, tiny in blitz, and very small in rapid, so opening draw rate is dominated by the format.

I took a look at this lichess database. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5, black played 3...d6 only 65% of the time. The second most popular move was 3...Qe7 at 13%, and it's downhill from there. People are just messing around, so I'm not sure we can draw *any* useful conclusions from the data.

MNb wrote on 04/20/20 at 06:47:29:



Smells fishy? Do you mean that those numbers are 'fake' ? lol

The Lichess online database are online games played on Lichess. It has nothing to do with OTB games. Those games are played by 'weak' amateurs playing online bullet/blitz/rapid.

I only used it to give it as example to show that for weak amateurs like me the draw rate is very low, in any opening.

TopNotch wrote on 04/20/20 at 01:37:46:

This is testable. Eg 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4

- 5.d3 Black wins 27%,
- 5.d4  18%,
- 5.Nc3 17%
- 5.Qe2 Black wins 23%.

TopNotch wrote on 04/19/20 at 18:32:07:


Using this variation didn't work too well for Kramnik (who rate wise was the stronger player) against Caruana in the 2018 Berlin Candidates....and looking through the database at some of the positions black has achieved in the late middle game/early endgame I would very much like to have them against weaker white opposition...

I guess if you think about it you wouldn't play the French Defence against weaker opposition because of the exchange variation nor I guess the Slav again the dreaded exchange variation (even Sam Shankland on Chess24 Banta today said black just has to be patient and hope his opponent plays inaccurately)  and even in the King's Indian Main Line white can exchange on e5 on move 7....and I'm sure the list goes on. 

So I don't think the Petroff is the only opening that white can try and kill the game.....regardless of the position good players can generally find a way to make it difficult for their opponent and that applies to the Petroff as well.

doefmat wrote on 04/19/20 at 17:48:22:


Thanks for your contribution to the debate, I was a bit surprised, as nowadays this forum moves so unbearably slowly that I have long moved on to more stimulating pastures. However being sequestered at home prompted a return.

Having got that out of the way, I don't like relying heavily on chess stats to make a point, stats can be too easily manipulated to support whatever position you like. If you go by stats The BDG, Latvian and Elephant Gambit are fantastic openings at amateur level, while objectively the reality is completely different.

I am not saying that some amateurs won't like the simplicity of the Petroff, I'm saying that most will not and I don't see it ever becoming popular at that level. Sure amateurs should learn how to play symmetrical structures, they also should spend more time on endgames but most of them will never do it, the lure of winning quickly with some trappy opening is just too strong.

For sure the Petroff has some potential to score well below master level, since as mentioned in a previous post many White players freak out against it. But lets say the Petroff were to become popular at lower levels, I think it's appeal would soon wear thin as they are too many ways to kill off the game, I mean as Black would you want this position against a weaker player: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qe2 or 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.Bd3 d5 5.Nxe5 Nd7 6.Nxf7
or am I overstating things.

TopNotch wrote on 04/19/20 at 13:10:10:

I think people's instincts in such matters are generally not great, and they should try to adopt a more evidence-based approach. From the standpoint of comparative advantage, for every player who does worse in symmetrical positions, there is another player who does better. Or would do better, if they bothered to find out.

TopNotch wrote on 04/18/20 at 23:41:20:

I can't explain it, but this usage of "Pet" really bothers me. (But "Rep" doesn't, go figure.) Please stop.

TopNotch wrote on 04/18/20 at 23:41:20:

I think this is not true in every case. Many amateur players will do better in asymmetrical defenses, but some amateur players would do great in symmetrical defenses. The problem is that even the players in category B hate symmetrical defenses, and avoid them like the plague. They never give themselves the opportunity to find out if they would do well there. And if they accidentally find themselves drifting towards such a position, their hatred overwhelms their common sense, and they lash out early to "break the symmetry". That's a sure-fire way to go down in flames, thus reinforcing their incorrect notions about symmetrical positions.

It turns out I belong to category B. As a rank beginner, I was innocent of such notions, and played whatever, without regard for symmetry. Once I learned about modern, asymmetrical, dynamic play, I spent 15 years running away from symmetry. In the process, I somehow managed to ignore that my black record in the Exchange French was 15-0! (At least I managed to avoid the lashing out part.) Nowadays my absolute favorite black opening is the Exchange Slav. I always win, unless my opponent is stronger than me, when I "only" draw. I actually think the Petroff would be an ideal opening for me, and I should take it up. I've been telling myself that for over 20 years, by now it's just an idle revery.

When I was teaching chess, my philosophy for my students, all of whom were amateurs, was any opening is good. In no particular order:

• Be objective. Know when a loss was your fault vs the opening's fault. Know when a win was because your opponent was a fish vs you played a great opening. 
• Don't play for traps. (This is a tough sell.) Traps are the opposite of objectivity.
• Analyze your games afterwards. Every game is an opportunity to learn more about your opening, not to mention about yourself as a player.
• Know your opening well. Know the book, know what theory considers critical, the antidote, etc.

The biggest mistake I see amongst amateurs is an incorrect self-definition. Something like 90%, at a guess, see themselves as "aggressive" and "tactical" players. Whereas what I see is that they like aggression and they like tactics, regardless of whether it's appropriate for them. It's so limiting. The reason you are an amateur is because there's something about chess you don't know yet. Go learn that thing, and you will be a better player. Learn something about yourself, and you will be the best player you can be.

Edited:

MW wrote on 04/18/20 at 01:46:39:


I agree with that and that, indeed I don't think I've ever faced the Petroff in tournament Praxis. Though I always had a simple line prepared just in case someone surprised me with it: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 Nxe4 4. Bd3 d5 5.Nxe5  Nd7 6. 0-0!? not theoretically threatening, but it does have a drop of poison, and if it's reliable enough for Tiviakov it's reliable enough for me. That said, if I knew the Pet was coming I probably wouldn't play that way.