|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 16 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-26-05 | | ongyj: Thanks for the replies. I've certainly been musch enlightened just from this forum. |
|
| Mar-26-05 | | Backward Development: very good link adrianp! I'm thinking of buying a good petrov's defense book, but don't know any of the best titles. Can anybody here recommend some good petrov's books<that would still be in print>? |
|
| Mar-26-05 | | zorro: for White: Beating the Petroff by Kotronias, Batsford
for Black: the Petroff, dont remember author, Gambit |
|
| Apr-08-05 | | ongyj: I was just thinking, Black plays the Petroff with the mindset to draw (I seriously don't think ambitious Black players would use Petroff at all) so the ideas of sidelines as mentioned by all the users above to avoid easy draw would hit Black players hard psychologically:) Anyway, just to point out another 'popular sideline'LOL is 5.Qe2 Qe7 6.d3 Nf6 and there we are, back to a symmetrical position where being a devotee to the symmetrical theory, I reckon White better but I admit White players hardly win against Black players in this position though White players cannot lose(unless the player makes obvious blunder). |
|
| Apr-13-05 | | get Reti: I hate the petrov. I like the ponziani and the scotch. I get around the petrov by playing 3. Bc4 and transposing into the Two Knights. |
|
| Apr-13-05 | | Backward Development: <Black plays the Petroff with the mindset to draw>
A draw is the common result, although the mindset of many black players is not always to draw. "Emotional players are scared off by the symmetrical trend in the Petroff Defense; they are afraid of the drawish aspirations of weaker opponents who play white. But what can be more symmetrical than the initial position in chess, which has not yet been ruined by the notorious 'draw death' despite Capablanca's indications? A more skilful strategic player triumphs in the Petroff Defense regardless of the color of his pieces and the position's symmetry. The healthy strategic foundation of this opening allows black to defend a lot of systems in the Petroff Defense even while playing against stronger opponents."-Raetsky and Chetverik, "Petroff Defence" When I play the Petroff Defense, I don't usually play it with the intention of drawing, rather, with the aim of taking the game out of more tactical channels into strategic channels, especially the endgame. If black can survive the middlegame, than the ensuing endgame is usually quite pleasant for black<with the exception of the 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qe2 line, although this position is still complex enough for one to outplay one's opponent.> <I get around the petrov by playing 3. Bc4 and transposing into the Two Knights.>
I guess if you really want to, it does, but black is better after 3...Nxe4 4.Nc3 Nxc3 5.dxc3 f6 6.0-0 Nc6 7.Nh4 g6 8.f4 f5 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ng5 Bc5+ <  > IMO, white's best chance for an opening advantage are the sharp lines in 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Re1. Here black often goes in for the sharp 8...Bg4 9.c3 f5 10.Nbd2 0-0 11.Qb3 Kh8!? 12.Qxb7 Rf6 ~ is a heavily analyzed and very complex position, but one in which, IMO, proper defense should give white the edge. A popular game in this line is Ivanchuk-Shirov 1998<which I can't believe isn't in this DB> which continued 13.Qb5 Rb8 14.Qa4 Bd6 15.h3 Bh5 16.Be2 Rg6 17.Kf1!?<Raetsky & Chetverik>17...Bf4 18.Nb3 Bxc1 19.Raxc1 Qd6 20.Qc2 and white eventually won. |
|
| Apr-14-05 | | get Reti: <Backward Development> Black cannot play 5...f6 because of 6. Nxf5! Its like the flaw in the Damiano's Defense. |
|
| Apr-14-05 | | get Reti: I meant 6. Nxe5. And after 3...Nex4, white does best with the bishop sac on f7. |
|
| Apr-14-05 | | Backward Development: The lines I've given are from the published book "Petroff Defense" by Raetsky and Chetverik. Let's examine the two lines you gave me. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Bxf7+? Kxf7 White has no way to even get equality. His position is losing, for example
5. d3<or 5.Nxe5+ which usually transposes.> Nf6 6. Nxe5+ Kg8 7. O-O d6 8. Nf3 Nc6 9. Re1 Bg4 10. h3 Bh5 <  > or 5. Qe2 Nf6 6. Nxe5+ Kg8 7. d4 Qe8 8. Be3 d6 9. Nd3 Bf5 10. Nc3 Nc6 11. O-O Qf7 < >Black's a safe piece up. Now, as for 6. Nxe5? fxe5 7. Qh5+ g6 8. Qf3<8.Qxe5+? Qe7 The white queen isn't pinned in the Damiano's Defense.> 8...Qe7 9. h4 Bg7 10. h5 Qf6 11. Qe2 d6 12. Be3 Nc6 < > Practically speaking, these lines have some surprise value, but black's moves are hardly forced or 'only moves', and he should definitely win. If you're looking for sharp gambit play v. the Petrov's, the Cochrane gambit <1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7?!> is a slightly better choice. |
|
| Apr-16-05 | | ongyj: Thanks for your point <Backward Development> In addition to the 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qe2 line, I think 5.d3 might bore Black to death LOL. Maybe it's just me, but I don't enjoy symmetrical positions as black at all, being 'one move down'. To play the Petroff well as Black the player must be ready against 3.d4 and/or 3.Nxe5, 3.Nc3(probably going into four Knights game) and/or also the Cochrane gambit as mentioned. While I don't think White needs to come up with anything to avoid the Petroff, a good way out of it is Bishop's opening with 2.Bc4. But of course, that's another story...:) |
|
May-08-05
 | | Ron: The following position arising from the Petrov has occurred before:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nc4 Nxe4 5. Nc3 Nxc3 6. bxc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 However, a possible 8th move for White, Rb1, is not found in the database of chessbase. In a game against a computer, though set at a low level, play went: 8. Rb1 d5 9. Ne3 0-0 10. g3 c6 11. Bg2 Re8 12. 0-0 b6 13. Re1 Ba6 14. a4 Qe7 15. a5 Nbd7 16. Bd2 Qd6 17. Qf3 Rab8 18. Nf1 Qf8 19. Bf4 Rxe1 20. Rxe1 .... I suggest 8. Rb1 is a move which is at least ok for White, and which has not occurred before. |
|
| May-13-05 | | Schwartz: morostyle, the Petrov Modern Attack looks strong. It seems that most supergrandmasters play 3.Nxe5 instead of 3.d4 of the Petrov Modern Attack. Would you share you opinion about why they do this with me? |
|
| May-15-05 | | Jedi Knight: mhhh... most people are having probs winning against the petrov and say uhhhm its very drawish. i have a solution with better chances for white.
1.d4!!! sure there are still drawish lines against d4 but white has more chances winning it if u compare to 1.e4 and facing the petrov. the petrov really makes 1.e4 a bad move so just dont play it. enjoy 1.d4 !!! dont worry about the petrov just avoid it and play 1.d4!!! have fun and i wish u lots of success |
|
| May-15-05 | | Jedi Knight: infact if u check chessbase MEGABASE it gives 1.d4 a (!) and to 1.e4 gives a (?)
there are more then 3million gm games and i would say this data speaks for itself 1.d4 is logicaly whites best first move in that database |
|
| May-16-05 | | Dudley: Jedi Knight I agree but most players discussing the Petrov are not going to give up on 1.e4. If you want to play 1.e4 there are several ways to avoid the Petrov- 2.Bc4, 2.Nc3, 2.d4,2.f4. The only problem is that you can't play the Ruy without 2.Nf3. At GM level that's about all they play but at moderate levels there are plenty of playable alternatives. . The Petrov doesn't make 1.e4 a bad move by any means. |
|
| May-16-05 | | Swapmeet: <Jedi Knight> Then why are the best players in the world still playing e4? Do you know something that they don't? The Petrov has a reputation for being drawish, and yet it also frequently produces sharp positions with chances for both sides. Black has no forced drawing line, and white has no clear advantageous line...its still a hot theoretical battleground. If you think you know better, then I'm sorry but you're just naive. |
|
| May-16-05 | | waraygid: where i can play here for free? |
|
| May-16-05 | | Jedi Knight: my opinion is base on results then more then 3million gm top games u can find them in the chessbase MEGABASE DVD. i dont know better then gms in no way u missunderstood me.after knowing sum "facts" i created the opinion and wanted to share if u dont agree its not a problem just keep on playing your e4. |
|
| May-22-05 | | ongyj: Of course White players shouldn't abandon 1.e4 for the Petrov's defence! White's current ideal first moves are 1.c4, 1.d4, 1.e4 and/or 1.Nf3. Losing 1/4 of the choice would be disastrous. I too personally feel non 1.e4 games usually allows more creativity in opening play, especially since they are notorious for transpositions. In fact it would be even more silly to give up 2.Nf3 for 2...Nf6. How can symmetrical defences ever be sound? Hmm... |
|
| May-22-05 | | refutor: quite frankly, the petroff hasn't done that well at this tournament...if i was a superGM playing there, i would play 1.e4 *hoping* to get a petroff ;) |
|
| May-23-05 | | Backward Development: The Petroff seems to be going through a fashionable period. Only time will tell if it will end up like the 4 Knights' Game of the 90's, or whether theoretical research will discover even more to the opening than we already know. I think The Petroff's potential for interesting play is high, but there will always be 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qe2 for drawish players. |
|
| May-24-05 | | sandyobrien: Hey,
What's everyones opinion on 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 exd4 4. e5 Bb4+?! |
|
| May-24-05 | | Swapmeet: <sandyobrien> Can't say my opinion of it is very high, since it just loses a piece after 5.c3 dxc3 6.bxc3 |
|
| May-24-05 | | hintza: Much better just to play 4...Ne4 5.Qxd4 d5 6.exd6 Nxd6 = |
|
| May-24-05 | | Backward Development: 3...Nxe4 is much better still, since white doesn't get the annoying e4-e5 push.4.Bd3 d5 5.Nxe5 Nd7 6.Nxd7 Bxe7 7.0-0 Bd6 8.c4 c6 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Nc3 Nxc3 bxc3 0-0 12.Qh5 f5 Svidler vs Ponomariov, 2001 is no problem for black, and 6.Qe2 Nxe5!? 7.Bxe4 dxe4 8.Qxe4 Be6 9.Qxe5 Qe7 10.Be3 Bb4+ 11.c3 Bd6 12.Qa5 Sorokin-Raetsky, 1984 leaves black with compensation. I think the former is soundest, and its simplifying nature is probably the reason it's not favored by the elite. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 16 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
