< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 15 ·
|Feb-20-09|| ||Chigorin: <FiveofSwords: I think it is also interesting to note that in most of the lines where the knight returns to f6, it becomes a transposition to a queen's gambit accepted.>|
Interesting. Could you give some examples? I was unaware of the transposition.
|Feb-20-09|| ||KingG: <Chigorin> Here's an example: Kasparov vs Karpov, 1985 and Gelfand vs Adams, 1994.|
|Feb-20-09|| ||MaxxLange: Here's the Topalov-Kramnik Cochrane Gambit game:
Topalov vs Kramnik, 1999
So 5. d4 was the usual move? That explains why Kramnik played 5. c5 after Topalov's 5. Nc3: clamp down on that square and try to show that White's new move was inadequate
|Feb-20-09|| ||chessman95: That's an interesting game. Here's one played by Cochrane himself, where we see him chase the exposed king all the way to the queen side of the board:
Cochrane vs Mohishunder, 1848
|Feb-21-09|| ||FiveofSwords: <chigorin> theres a lot of ways the two can transpose, the old main line of the petroff and the queens gambit accepted are essentially the same opening. They are both fundamental parts of my repitore and I dont know how common that is so that might be why they might not always reach the exact same position, even tho it could be done with a perfectly normal logical play. compare these 2 lines for example: 1e4 e5 2 nf3 nf6 3 nxe5 d6 4 Nf3 nxe4 5 d4 d5 6Bd3 Nc6 7 0-0 Bg4 8. Re1 Be7 9 c4 Nf6 10 Nc3 dc!? (never played, but forces the transposition. nothing wrong with this move really, logically. In many lines white can do unpleasant things to black with cd, so might as well hurry up and force the isolated pawn, while the bishop is really not optimally placed on c4 in this position.) 11 Bxc4 0-0 verus 1d4 d5 2 c4 dc 3 e3 e5 4 Bxc4 ed 5 ed Nf6 6 Nf3 Bg4 7 0-0 Be7 8 Nc3 0-0 9 Re1 Nc6. Same position just a move earlier. The transposition you see more often is later on, in the Nb4 line (and you also see transpositions to white playing 3 e4 rather than 3 e3), but I hope you can see how similar the 2 openings are from this example.|
|Feb-21-09|| ||FiveofSwords: <kingG> oh heh I looked at the karpov game and noticed he played dc there also. But he didnt play Bg4 early and pressure white's D pawn, I personally consider this something of a mistake. But the gambit line with Qh3 is considered very dangerous for black (but I dont mind it) I know exactly what karpov did wrong in that game.|
|Mar-15-09|| ||Marmot PFL: It seems hard to find any games by Petrov where he actually played the Petrov Defense.|
|Apr-30-09|| ||blacksburg: oh, i like this petrov thing. i played it a few times, and i like it a lot. i like it much more than defending the ruy lopez or italian game. i like quick development and no weaknesses.|
i keep hearing that this opening is a boring draw, but at my level, no opening is drawish.
i was surprised to see that Pillsbury and Marshall played this a lot, and i don't think of them as drawniks. i think i just found a new favorite e4 defense.
|May-01-09|| ||chessman95: <i think i just found a new favorite e4 defense.>|
Congrats! I could never get myself to like playing the Petroff as black, and (of course) I hate playing against the Ruy, Italian, Scotch etc. which I all consider to be strong for white. So I'm stuck playing through various semi-open defenses... right now the Sicilian, which I'm enjoying very much and has been extremely successful.
|May-01-09|| ||acirce: My main defence against 1.e4 has been the Petroff for years. Lately I'm trying the Berlin more and more and I'll also add the Ruy Chigorin. On the whole, these two are more interesting. But the anti-Petroff nonsense, constantly propagated by people like Mig and various ordinary "fans"/players who often - not always - repeat it just because they hear others saying it is quite annoying.|
Everyone is entitled to their own taste but once one actually takes a look, it is so totally obvious that Petroff games on all levels regularly turn out to be interesting no matter what kind of game you like. Attacking games, positional games, technical games, wild unbalanced games, endgames. Why this particular opening is always singled out as the very epitome of Boring is a mystery. It's that and sometimes the Berlin. Maybe it's not too far-fetched to believe it has to do with Kramnik playing them.
Funny thing is that the Petroff is more tactical than, for instance, the mainline Ruy. But you'll rarely see fans of tactics bash the latter opening. (Of course, as chess is by its nature very tactical, tactics are going to come sooner or later anyway.)
One problem with the Petroff connected to this is that you have to know quite a few concrete lines or you will be crushed. (I make the point here - Grischuk vs Judit Polgar, 2007 - even a great player like Polgár gets in enormous trouble as soon as she is on her own, which is already at move 12 in a common line. But there are many other examples - including Kramnik.) This goes to some extent the other way too - depending on what line White chooses he also does best to know his stuff. On the other hand, playing 2..Nc6 of course you don't just have to learn the Ruy but also the Scotch and so on.
"Since many players look on the Russian Defence with the suspicion that it is a drawish opening, and one which at the same time is both dry and boring, Shirov has in this DVD set himself the specific task of countering this view of matters." -- http://www.chessbase.com/shop/produ...
"Unfortunately the opinion of the Petroff Defence as a sterile drawish opening seems to be firmly implanted in many minds. The author [Kasimdzhanov] tries to dispel these myths and presents his understanding of the matter." -- http://www.chessbase.com/shop/produ...
"It's a tired urban legend that the Petroff is some sort of dull drawing opening, but since it's a lot easier to believe what the crowd repeats out of habit than to actually examine things for oneself, that reputation will probably continue indefinitely." -- Dennis Monokroussos, http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/pos...
|May-01-09|| ||acirce: < I think that the Cochrane Gambit (1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7) is a very underestimated opening for white.>|
I disagree, but I'm still somewhat afraid of having to actually meet it in a serious game. We Petroff players aren't supposed to reveal that, though, so don't tell anyone. :o)
|May-01-09|| ||acirce: The Shirov-Bluvshtein game Monokroussos refers to: http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/fil...|
|May-01-09|| ||chessman95: <acirce:
<I think that the Cochrane Gambit (1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7) is a very underestimated opening for white.>
I disagree, but I'm still somewhat afraid of having to actually meet it in a serious game.>
That's what I like about it: Petrov players absolutely hate it... and knights happen to be my weakest peices for attacking, so if I can sacrifice them for reasonable compensation I will always take that into consideration. I personally do think it's sound though.
|May-02-09|| ||acirce: I don't hate it, but it becomes a challenge of psychological nature - the extra pressure of "having to" refute it and the humiliation if I were, say, to be crushed in a miniature... this goes for most other questionable or outright bad gambits as well.|
|May-06-09|| ||chessman95: <the humiliation if I were, say, to be crushed in a miniature... this goes for most other questionable or outright bad gambits as well.>|
True. I always feel a little bit of extra pressure to win whenever I play some strange defense or unsound gambit, which I find very annoying.
|May-09-09|| ||acirce: A Facebook application just told me my Russian name is <Pavel Petrov>.|
|May-28-09|| ||zoren: Are there any good Petrov books? They all seem dated.|
|Jun-15-09|| ||Moses2792796: I am always happy to see my opponent play the Russian game. In my opinion with accurate play from white black will find it nearly impossible to equalise. I don't play e5 in response to e4 myself, so I have no experience using the defence, but I find it much easier to play against than black's other options.|
|Sep-04-09|| ||jamesmaskell: A line from a recent Congress went 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Bc4 O-O 5. Nxe5 d6 (...Qe7 or Qe8 normal) 6. Nxf7 Rxf7 7. Bxf7+ Kxf7.|
|Sep-26-09|| ||Open Defence: http://www.chessbase.com/cbm/cbm131...|
|Oct-02-09|| ||zoren: Alright, since my last post I have Yusupovs book, the latest C42 games, and I've come to the conclusion that this defense is really hard to play, and the complications usually are very very subtle and too minute to notice until its too late. |
I played a series of internet games using the defense and usually the games are usually very interesting, contrary to its reputation.
Its quite amazing how guys like Kramnik, Gelfand, Yue hold perfectly using the Petroff.
|Apr-05-10|| ||FiveofSwords: Im fairly good at accurate calculation, so I actually win a lot as black in the petroff. Im not playing kasparov, of course, but I have beaten many masters. Its true that black has to play accurately, but all those open lines can potentially cut both ways, white can't be flippant himself. And its nice to know that when you see trouble coming in a few moves, as black, you almost always have the option of bailing out and liquidating to an endgame.|
|Jan-15-11|| ||GrahamClayton: |
click for larger view
In the final edition of the "Handbuch" (1916) Schlechter recommends 9...d7, but adds the remark "it prevents 10.b5, but 9...c6 is better."
|Feb-12-11|| ||Penguincw: The <Opening of the Day> today goes to : The <Petrov Defense>!.1.e4 e5 2.f3 f6|
|Apr-13-11|| ||Maatalkko: Thoughts on the Cochrane Gambit:
The more I look at it,
The more I like it.
I do think it's good.
The fact is
No matter how much I study it,
No matter how I take it apart,
No matter how I break it down,
It remains consistent.
I wish you were here to see it!
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 15 ·