After working through the book I still have a very high opinion about it, maybe even more than before. Now I just want to share some more typos/mistakes/notes :

p.34 right „Schonberger - Krebs, email 2012“ : probably the white player is Kay Schönberger (/Schoenberger)

p.44 right „... when Black‘s active bishops offers him ...“ : offer

p.62 left „This been played ...“ : has

p.69 left „Black centralizes his rook and put pressure on ...“ ; puts

p.110 left „the immediate 15...gxf5 should lead to a draw in the same way“ : well, 15...gxf5?? 16.Qh5+! is probably winning for White! But this doesn’t affect the over-all evaluation 

p.113 left ; the whole variation B21 is fine for Black, but if you analyse 9.Be2? (-+) and 9.Be3 (=+), you could also take a look at the chaotic 9.Kd1?! (oo/=+) which is the first choice of my SF10

p.126 right „11.Ne4!N The knight it heading...“ ; is

p.131 right „15.d5 ... 19.Ng5 Ree8 was level...“ ; 19.Nxg5

p.148 left „Blac intends ...Re8 ...“ ; Black

p.153 left „... enables Black‘s pieces to springs to life“ ; spring

p.199 right „... where my analysis shows that Black more than enough resources...“ ; has

p.203 right „... capturing it does not give White as easy game „ ; an

p.230 left „... 26.Kxd2 Despite White‘s extra pawn, the opposite-coloured bishops enabled Black to hold the draw ...“ ; that‘s a little bit misleading imo, as actual the material is equal and only three moves later White wins his extra pawn! Even if the position after 26.Kxd2 is not too complex, it might take some time and playing strengh to see that spending a pawn is the best (or even the only) way for Black to reach the draw!?

p.235 right „... even through it is currently blocked ...“ ; though

p.237 left „16.Qg3+ ... 18.Rxe6 (17.Qf4 gives Black the extra option of ... 17...Bg4!? ...“ ; if you want to make some sense out of this, read 18.Qg3+ (for 17.Qf4) and 18... Bg4!? (for 17... Bg4!?)

p.265 left In the coverage of the Modern Defence to the King‘s Gambit I miss the Declined Falkbeer 2.f4 d5 3.Nf3

p.271 right „This is the only key move to know. 9.Kd2 So far ...“ ; Obviously 9.Qd2 was the move played in Hector-Smith 2017 

p.293f „15.Qf2 Ne7! With an extra pawn and the knight heading for the perfect g5-square, ...“ ; certainly the Ne7 heads for f5 or g6

p.302 left „3.Nc3 would of course lead back to variation C of the previous Chapter 1.“ ; Chapter 15

p.305 <-> p.307:  7.Nbd2 0-0 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Re1 Re8 and 7.0-0 0-0 8.Re1 Nbd7 9.Nbd2 Qc7! (Re8?!) lead to the same position but get different evaluations/suggestions, probably the second suggestion is better

* * *

I didn‘t look as deep in Kravtsiv‘s books (Italian Renaissance 1&2), there I just counterchecked Swapnil‘s Petroff lines and noticed one little typo/mistake (Vol.1, p.157 left):
17...Bd7! 18.Nd4 b5! 19.Qd6 Ra6 20.Qe7 Qxe7=
That’s nonsense cause of 19.Qd6?! Ra6?? 20.Qxa6 +-
Obviously meant is 18.Nd4 b5 or 18.Qd6 Ra6 19.Qe7 Qxe7=

tracke 

I probably did not explain myself very well. Obviously, lots of shocking moves are so because they are bad. Nc6 is not bad, which makes it even more shocking in my eyes. I play it for two reasons: aesthetic (a beautiful and sound move) and because it allows me to play 4 dxe5 Bc5 without being afraid of 4 Bd3 d5 5 dxe5. The story about my opponent being shellshocked was just an illustration. It's not my main goal to shock my opponents or to make them uncomfortable.

That's true, but the reasons for playing 4...Nc6 don't have to be psychological. It's a sound alternative to 4...d5 that doesn't give White the ability to make a draw immediately.

fjd wrote on 07/27/20 at 01:28:36:

I think for that move alone it is worth taking up the Petroff. I've only had it on the table OTB once, but my opponent was completely shellshocked. I lost later because I'm bad at chess, but the look on his face was priceless.

It also means that one can play 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 d4 Nxe4 4 dxe5 Bc5 as Lakdawala recommends. It mostly ends in perpetual but at least it's fun.


MNb wrote on 04/21/20 at 11:29:47:

Wow that's awesome, never heard of this line

fjd wrote on 07/27/20 at 08:17:29:


It does indeed....I should of had a closer look...sorry!

fjd wrote on 07/27/20 at 01:28:36:


5 Bxe4 perhaps..

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


tracke wrote on 07/17/20 at 21:38:58:


In a similar vein, on the Quality Chess blog "JB" says Dhopade's repertoire allows white to force a perpetual at move 6. http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog/7441#comment-458104

I think the line in question is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.Bd3 d5 5.Nxe5 Nd7 6.Nxf7. 

Is the Petroff really only suitable for match play, correspondence play, or the last round of a swiss? I would not always object to a draw against a slightly weaker white, but I wouldn't want to make a habit of it. And if white is substantially weaker, I would feel obliged to vary from a forced perpetual. Move two seems like a good moment. 

I came to that conclusion a long time ago, but it didn't stop me from posting this nonsense:
an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 04/19/20 at 03:05:17:

The correct thing to do is, after having weighed up all the pros and cons in the decision-making process, to write down the reasons why I decided the way I did. Then I won't have to keep repeating the question endlessly for 20 years.

errata 1 (not really important):
p.22: 3.d4 Nxe4 4.Nxe5 d6 5.Nf3 d5 doesn’t transpose to Chapter 6 (5.d3) but to Chapters 8-10 (5.d4).

Btw, from the preface: „Carlsen only played 1.e4 in two of the twelve classical games of the match, [...]“
That’s not explicitly wrong but maybe misleading, of course Carlsen had only six classical games as White.

tracke 

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 07/25/20 at 04:24:06:

I'm looking at the Hooper book, and what he actually gave there is 9. Bxd5 Qxe5 =.  (Might be wrong, but at least it's not ridiculous like the 9. d4 bit.)

TNich wrote on 07/24/20 at 01:36:42:


Forintos & Haag cover it in all of chapter 36 (pages 236 to 239).

tracke wrote on 07/24/20 at 12:45:21:

Wow; I recognized that as Capablanca-Maroczy, perhaps a paradigm of Exchange French drawishness.

Regarding 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4?! Nxe4! without 4.Nc3 Dhopade has a half page, essentially 
- 4.0-0?! d5 5.Qe2 dxc4 6.Qxe4 Nc6! 7.Nxe5 Qd4! 8.Re1 Qxe4 9.Rxe4 Nxe5 10.Rxe5+ Be6. -/+
- 4.d3 Nc5 5.Nxe5 d5 6.Bb3 Bd6 7.d4 Nxb3 8.axb3 0-0 9.0-0 d4!  =/+

Chapter 6 about the French Exchange (3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d3 Nf6 6.d4 d5) is interesting but maybe too long (15 pages) in a book on the Petroff?
There has been some debate on 7.Bd3 Bd6 8.Qe2+, but Dophade also spends 3 full pages on 7.Bd3 Bd6 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 Bg4 10.Nbd2 Nbd7 11.c3 c6 12.Qc2 Qc7 .

I‘m not the man to decide about cutting edge theory, but imo there have recently been some developments in the line 3.d4 Nxe4 4.Bd3 d5 5.Nxe5 Nd7 6.Nc3, maybe Dhopade‘s choice 6...Nxc3 7.bxc3 Nxe5 8. dxe5 Bc5 (only 2 pages) isn‘t as safe as it was in 2019, White‘s attacking ideas are quite deep?!

Anyway, the real meat of Dhopade‘s book are Chapter 8-12 with coverage of the Marshall System 6...Bd6 in the Old main line and the Modern main line with 5.Nc3.
Therefore all serious Petroff players will need this book! If the book suits as stand-alone source or is just a necessary additional source, depends on the individual playing strengh, working methods, repertoire choices and the way you play the Petroff!?

So far I‘ve put four Chapters into my private files but haven’t found any analytical mistakes or typos.

tracke 

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 07/24/20 at 06:11:44:

Your argument fully applies to 3.h3 as well - a 2200+ player has had success with it and that's way above my level. 

Straggler wrote on 07/24/20 at 08:35:23:

At my patzer level nobody has ever played 3.Bc4 either. So what the people around you play must determine the content of an opening book? If not this is simply irrelevant.

Straggler wrote on 07/24/20 at 08:35:23:

So Xavier Delebarre is a nobody.

Straggler wrote on 07/24/20 at 08:35:23:

My comments are not about 3.Bc4 against the Petrov, but about other options than 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Nc3. You could have concluded that from

MNb wrote on 07/24/20 at 05:42:18:


Look, we've got it. Dhopade hasn't presented antidotes to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 other moves than 4.Nc3. Some serious people might be grateful for this incredibly important information but also suggest that it's time to move on. That's what I will do.

MNb wrote on 07/24/20 at 05:42:18:

A little heavy on the sarcasm for my taste. I already quoted from Harding's book before in this thread. As for whether books should cover sidelines, it depends on the audience. Books aimed at strong players should not, they would just find it annoying. Books aimed at club players most definitely should. As MW says, at his level the sidelines are actually the main lines. Even your Najdorf 6.Bg5 e5 example might deserve a mention in a book for club players; it could be instructive to show the punishment. No doubt some of them will actually face 6...e5.

kylemeister wrote on 07/24/20 at 02:23:31:


Now we're at it, so does IM Harding in his 1973 book Bishop's Opening. Half a page on other moves than 4.Nc3 ! I'm sure theory on these options has radically changed since then.
Another question, do those books on the Petrov's Defense deal with 3.h3 ? If not it's a serious omission, comparable with GM Nunn refusing to deal with 6...e5 in his Complete Najdorf 6.Bg5 book. 

TNich wrote on 07/24/20 at 01:36:42:


Cohen does mention it note (B) at the bottom of page 61

Cohen simply does not cover the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3. Bc4.
The move order he uses for the bishop opening is 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 and after 2.Nf6 he doesn't mention 3.Nf3 at all. Instead, He offers 3.d4 and 3.d3. 
Curiously, The Bishop's Opening is not well covered in Petroff repertoire books.
Lakdawala in both 'The Petroff: Move by Move' and 'Opening Repertoire: The Petroff' fails to cover the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxe4. 
Other books not covering the position are:
The Petroff: an Expert Repertoire for Black - Sakaev.
Petroff Defence - Raetsky & Chetverik 
Petroff's Defence - Fornitos & Haag

So kudos to the following authors who do cover it:
The Petroff Defence - Yusupov
The Petroff - Janjgava

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 07/23/20 at 22:55:23:


Cohen recommends 4...d5 5.exd5 Bb4+

Dhopade recommends the 6...Bd6 line. His mainline being 7.0-0 0-0 8.c4 c6.

Chapter 1 is a bit disappointing because it's on the thin side. At my level 3.Bc4?! is almost a mainline and after 3...Nxe4 the most played line is 4.Nxe5. I know black should be happy here but there are some moves that can be tricky. Cohen did cover a lot more here, Dhopade doesn't even mention 4.Nxe5.

This move order isn't mention in several of the other books I have on the Petroff either....I did find a few games in my database where it has been played by 2000+ players but white's results are terrible. I had a look at Cohen's book and I think if you know his analysis you shouldn't have any trouble....black just gets a good game.

All the best.

Thanks for all your help and input. Looking forward to receiving my copy and sounds like I'm going to enjoy working my way through the content.
All the best.

Hallo MW, I‘m almost twenty years less wise than you and my interest for the Petroff only began with Kramnik‘s games (in general) and then again with the books from Sakaev and Cohen. Meanwhile I purchased back to the 1990s as many of these partly outdated books cover sidelines more completely and/or are still instructive (especially Yusupov with his >200 test positions). -

Regarding Dophade’s coverage of the Modern Main Line with 10...c5 you cannot see from the abridged Variation index that Chapter 11 has 2 pages about 11.h3 &11.h4, 2 pages about 11.c4?! b5! and 3 pages about 11.Bg5 & conclusion. With 11.Bg5 being very sharp with a forced draw in long lines, maybe best but impractical ?!
The 10...c5 fashion is understandable but my personal choice is the solid 10...Re8 (no special source, mainly corr games). It looks passive but has hold in otb and corr. Of course it‘s dead drawish, too, but there are not so many long forced variations and in the resulting rook endings with equal material it‘s possible to grind out ill-prepared weaker players, at least in rapid! Lately even Caruana has experimented with 10...Re8 though he lost rapid against Carlsen!? -

Dophade‘s coverage of the Russian Three Knights (11 pages) looks promising. He concentrates on ...d6 structures (often with ...b6), gives clear strategic advice and seems to equalize completely against both Sielecki(2018) and Khalifman/Soloviov(2019)?!

A bigger (practical) problem might be the topical endgame from Chapter 8 (10.Qb3 Qd7 11.Nc3 Nxc3 12.Bxf5 Qxf5 13.Qxb7 Qd7 14.Qxd7 Nxd7 15.c5! Bxh2+! etc.) which has vanished from elite play. I do not object to Dophade’s choice (Anand-Fedoseev, WaZ 2019, 21...Nd7=) or his evaluation and comments, but one page is really nothing to understand this difficult endgame! I played this endgame twice in corr (both 17...Rfc8 and 17...Rfe8) and was able to defend, but in ways I don’t want to repeat otb! Imo this equal/unclear endgame should have been treated on several pages (as the Panov endgame in the books from Aagaard and Schandorff!?). -

Dophade’s choice to accept gambits like Göring and Danish doesn’t seem typical or practical for Petroff players?!
Maybe I‘m crazy or too tired now, but I can‘t see any single word (or an obvious transposition) regarding 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4?! or 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4?!, the Urusov doesn’t seem to exist for GMs? I understand that the „slighty less detailed section“ of non-2.Nf3 lines is just an extra to the Petroff coverage but one black move and a recommendation to look at Ntirlis/Khalifman/Lokander/... wouldn’t hurt.
Coverage of Vienna and Bishop Game (with 3.d3) seems fine though I‘m waiting for the first volume of Italian Renaissance (august?)

tracke 

Chapter 11 introduces 5.Nc3 and covers sidelines and deviations up to move 11, including your three and also 11.h3. I agree that a few strategically placed comments indicating playable alternatives would have been helpful, but overall this book looks like a fine piece of work.

My little and long awaited February-to-July-Chess-Things-Parcel arrived this morning with NiCs, Infs, CBMs, Kotronias, Hausrath, Burgess, Pavlovic, Odessky, Sedlak and more 
After two hours of intensive glancing at S. Dophade now only some remarks, the other books are waiting ...

This Petroff book is definitely a good one! Probably a very good one!? Certainly a must buy for any Petroff player ~1800-2400 !
It‘s very analytical with many little improvements and a lot of new (and seemingly good and useful) ideas. Since 2017 I‘ve followed Petroff theory very closely and even 
played it in corr master class (drawing all games), regarding correctness of analysis I don’t see any problem.
Complains could start about the narrow repertoire, almost always only one black option. And most often you don‘t get to know if the recommend move ist the only one (and the last but sufficent black try) or if Dophades choice is an interesting and unclear try while three other solid equalizers exist. Sometimes many Petroff players would prefer other continuations of equal value. Often there’s no tendency to avoid dead positions or forced draws. And then, next subvariation, the author has a spicy idea in a well-known boring position. Not much strategical explanations, the evaluations at the end of the variations may be difficult to grasp for club players!? It‘s sometimes debatable if an 2000 or 1800 player could „understand“ a given variation. Or memorize a complicated one. It‘s difficult to decide if this book can be used as first introduction or as a stand-alone source for a Petroff newbie!? Or if it‘s just a necessary update?
I wouldn’t call these points disadvantages, probably it‘s just the trade mark of Qualitys Playing-the-series. The author got the task to write a concrete and correct and narrow black rep in the Petroff according to certain criteria given by the QC team, and with this his first book he fullfilled this task perfectly well, to 100 or even 110%!!
If you rate this book with 3,5 or 4 or 4,5 or 5 stars (out of 5), mainly depends on your playing strengh, your preferred working style, the role of the Petroff in your anti-e4-rep, your existing knowledge of the Petroff and so on. 
Anyway, given the huge amount of analytical input any black Petroff player >1800 will need this book!

tracke 

PS: As long as I‘m not occupied with the other books, I of course can answer some general or detailed questions concerning variations. As usual no endless detailed questions, as the publishers and authors deserves the copies to be bought! (Maybe this time some extra questions to the end of world?    )

15th of july release date

You can try caissabase. It's currently 4.02 million games, updated every few months with TWIC games. And it's free.

Michael Ayton wrote on 04/21/20 at 17:31:03:

So do I, added with updates lfrom sources ike TWIC. So I recommend  to check my results with your own database; if the results are about the same it's likely that they are reliable.

TopNotch wrote on 04/21/20 at 19:40:14:

Out of comfort zone, I suppose. It's a good reason to buy Khalifman's/Soloviov's book, even if the Ruy Lopez is your main weapon; it allows White to avoid the dreaded Berlin Wall too.
Off topic: I find it funny that the subtitble is "a solid strategic approach" with the aim of "squeezing 1.e4 e5" while quite often play gets very tactical. Of course I realize this is a false dilemma.

MNb wrote on 04/20/20 at 21:07:36:

What database(s) are you using to generate this and other sterling info, MNb? Is it the database you get with/in ChessBase if you pay for it? You'll have to forgive my dimwittedness here -- I have only an ancient version of ChessBase (and at the moment not even that, but only ChessBase Reader 2017 as I'm away from home for a while ...)

Definitely agree about the 5 Nc3 endings.

I can still remember being amazed to see that white could hope to squeeze some of those.

Again, if an amateur loves the Petrov so much that he/she thinks he/she's an exception, by all means play it. The percentagaes I gave remain what they are. Fun fact: on the same level (ELO from 1000 - 2000) Black wins 38% of the games in the French Exchange. Do with it what you want.
Btw I don't think the French and the Alekhine are particularly good defenses for many amateurs. TopNotch claimed that they display FIghting Spirit and that's not entirely the same.

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.   

I agree most amateurs who play in club and swiss events will want a different defense. But not all. If they are young and ambitious, planning to be a GM someday, then the Petroff would be ideal paired with a sharper option, like the Sicilian for Makarichev, or the Winawer for Yusupov. I can see a huge demand for this title in India and China. Whether they will actually sell many copies in those countries is doubtful, unfortunately.

Edited:

TopNotch wrote on 04/17/20 at 22:01:26:


Interesting perspective. What are examples of black openings you think are better suited for amateurs?

Kingside castling in the modern mainline always looked pretty scary to me but maybe the book can convince me to try it.

Bb4 instead of the Four Knights also looks interesting.

PDF preview is out now, looks nice!
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/1/371/playing_the_petroff_by_swapnil_dhop...

tracke

RoleyPoley wrote on 01/12/20 at 18:45:48:

Leon_Trotsky wrote on 01/12/20 at 23:01:42:


I have Fight Like Caruana and it is very good, excellent in fact, but I was referring to printed material. I haven't finished this course and unlike a book I find it hard to flick through and look at the more challenging lines for black. Chessable products are still a work in progress for me, great if you want to simply learn variations but for use as a reference source I'm not proficient enough with the product yet.

The two Lakdawala books are also very good reads and I was impressed with the fact that there was little cross over of material between the two books. But in the Opening repertoire edition if you look at the "new main line" as he calls it, he offers a number of different lines for black resulting in the level of depth in each option being a little on the thin side for a repertoire.

As for Or Cohen's book I have nothing but absolute admiration for the guy. He was pretty much unknown at the time and he put together an excellent book, one or two lines might have been on the edge but IMO that took nothing away from the finished product. Trouble is it is seven years old now and theory on the Petroff has moved on, hence I welcome Quality's new volume on this opening.   

doefmat wrote on 01/12/20 at 17:35:27:

Perhaps he is referring to print sources?

doefmat wrote on 01/12/20 at 10:25:23:


IMO the last authoritative book on the Petroff was written by Sakaev in 2011..hence the time has come for a up-date and I'm hoping this new book will provide that.

According to the publisher Swapnil has played the Petroff a few times although it is not the backbone of his repertoire. They do go onto say that they still think his analysis of it is first rate.

They have given no hint as to whether he will recommend 6...Bd6  (as per the Caruana repertoire) or the more usual 6...Nc6 against the old main line.

Regardless it is a long overdue book (IMHO) and one I'm looking forward too.

Quality Chess has just announced several forthcoming books, among them is

Playing the Petroff - A Bulletproof Repertoire by GM Swapnil Dhopade
expected release summer 2020
„This Book also provides plenty of guidance on how to deal with 1.e4 e5 games
where White avoids 2.Nf3, with particular focus on Anti-Petroff lines such as 2.Bc4“
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/1/371/playing_the_petroff_by_swapnil_dhop...

Also very interesting for Petroff players is another announcement by Quality
concerning a white repertoire in the Italian Game, with the first of two volumes
dealing with the 5.Nc3 in the Petroff AND with 2.Lc4. But that may be another thread.
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/1/359/the_italian_renaissance_-_i_move_or...

tracke