Getting Killed in the Petroff

No luck with the Petroff today, one of the best defenses against 1.e4.

My opponents will not cooperate and play 3.Nxe5. Mostly, I am seeing a transposition into the Four Knights. In this game, my opponent transposed the Petroff into the Italian, which I didn't consider.

After running this game through Fritz, it looks like I could have played 3...Nxe4, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4. I'm not sure if that is a smart move. What do you think? Game Explorer calls White's opening C42: Russian Game: Urusov Gambit

Is it a true gambit? Does White give up a pawn for compensation?

I lost four consecutive games to my opponent below. Time control was 15 0. I'm not sure if ChessCube has custom settings, because I really need 15 10, especially in games like this one, where I had the win in a few moves, but ran out of time. 

I don't think the problem lies with the opening. You seemed to do pretty well and had a piece advantage for most of the game but you couldn't convert it. I'd say take a look at your endgame; you dropped pawns like the plague!

I think there are some good endgame videos on chess.com and possibly on youtube :) or alternatively, check out some Karpov games - he's great at minimizing opponent's counterplay and keeping everything secure in the endgame.

Then again, you're rated higher than I, so what do I know? :P That was just the impression I got from your game example. I imagine others may have some more insightful advice... I certainly hope so!

Indeed, I find so many players in the 1300's that know their openings very well.  It's an easy part of the game to memorize and it will put you in some great positions... fine and dandy,  but if you tend to fall apart in the middle game or endgame, what's the point?  From this point on study tactics and endgames and checkmating patterns...  Anybody can walk into a forest.  It's how you get OUT that matters! 

Strictly speaking, the Urusov Gambit proper is 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nc6 gets back into the Two Knights defense (usual move-order is 2...Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6) and 3...Nxe4 4.Nc3 is another tricky beast, which name I don't remember.

And yes, of course, Fritz wants to snatch the central pawn : he is not the one sitting behind the black pieces

Think 3...Nxe4 is the most principaled move, not that their is anything wrong with 3...Nc6.

Your opening play was good. The problem is your endgame play.

Notwithstanding other inaccuracies, if you'd simply borne in mind that rooks belong behind passed pawns rather than trying to attack his b-pawn from the side, I think you would have won this game easily. Which is much more important than knowing what the Urusov Gambit is or what to do against it.

This opening can transpose into a Giuoco Piano or Italian Game or a Four Knights when I usually encounter it.

Thank you.

Endgame technique takes time to develop, and I am working on it. Until then I will remember to set the clock for increments, because I often find myself in a completely winning position with way too much time pressure.

Ten seconds per move makes a huge difference. I can relax, and even see a full minute or two added to my clock at the end of a game.

"And yes, of course, Fritz wants to snatch the central pawn : he is not the one sitting behind the black pieces " -   Yep. The Fritz line is risky. I will need to study it a bit before giving it a try. 

One pleasant surprise with the Petroff is this: I am getting lots of practice in the Four Knights, which is probably good for me, a beginning chess player.

I'll bet that many school children learned the Four Knights game before anything else, building fundamental chess skills.

This opening is not easy to play for some reason, especially if one gets anxious to attack right away. That thinking can spell disaster. 

Perhaps it got lost in translation. The main point I wanted to make about the Petroff is not that I lose games using a solid defense, but that my opponents do not play the main line, which is 3.Nx5. They play 3.Nc3, mostly. 

What a coincidence: I just opened with 1.e4 against my computer opponent Excalibur (The New York Times Deluxe Edition). The handheld computer replied with the Petroff defense. I didn't play 3.Nc3, but the more popular 3.Nxe5.  I'll post the game when I am finished.

My game today against Excalibur, which chose the Petroff Defense. Excalibur is set to easy play, thus it went out of book and blundered on move 11. It would have been nice to have caught both 17.Ng5 and 21.Ng5.

Regarding endgame technique: It took Fritz the same number of moves as me to finish the game after 25.Nc3. However, Fritz was playing against Fritz, much harder than me playing against Excalibur set to easy.

All in all, Excalibur is a good sparring partner, and I can take as much time as I want over each move, and I do need to play more slow games. 

The very long continuation in blue is Fritz vs. Fritz, finishing the game.

I played one Live Chess game today, (15 10), showing expert endgame technique.

Fritz told me over and over again to play ...d2+, dummy! I looked at that move, but  couldn't see that my bishop at a4 made that short combination possible.

I'm very pleased to have looked for a better move, the one that won a bishop and queen for a queen. I was looking at moving my queen somewhere, maybe hitting a pawn with a discovered attack on White's queen with my rook. That would have done nothing. Ugh!

After winning the exchange, it felt like game over and an opportunity to practice endgame technique, since my center pawns were in a great position to advance.

I was going to resign after playing 9...Nh5 (??), with my horse taking a wrong turn into the path of White's queen, but my opponent missed the gift, so play continued.

Yes after 3...Nxe4 sombody mentioned 4Nc3 but after 4...Nc6 this transposes to old fork trick line in Italien game. Don't see much to worry black there. In general think it a good idea to follow Lasker, and take center pawns, unless see some obvious tactical problem.

 Dxe4 obviously loses?  Isn't white up a pawn here?  What am I missing(no not that qxe4 loses the queen-because he doesn't have to take that queen and can simply castle instead

 Sure it may be playable at our level.  BUt, u were asking why it wasn't seen at high level.  At the high level a pawn and some active pieces which don't actually seem to create concrete threats is not worth it. 

Lasker thought that? I like it. 

It does create an immediate problem for my opponent to solve...over the board...and not behind a chess engine...which makes complex moves look obvious, sometimes.

Time to burn 3...Nxe4 into my brain. Here are a few examples. I am working on finding a famous chess player who played 3...Nxe4. If I can't find someone, maybe someone else can. It would be neat to find a really old game as well by one of the legends, like Paul Morphy. 

I love looking at the old romantic games, as there are so many great attacking ideas, as well as a wealth of fun miniatures.

Even the over 2200 guys mess up in less than 20 moves.

Cool. I got the seal of improval by our own GM Alex Lenderman, who teaches here and at ICC. I hope I have the right Alex Lenderman. Either way, I must say that Alex has a great personality and a real gift for teaching chess.

This was mentioned before, a pawn fork trick to burn into one's brain, where Black can get a good game. Black has easy development and nothing to worry about.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4 d5 (!?) looks like a line where either side could get killed.  I ran Houdini all the way to Depth = 23 on six lines. In the diagram, the continuations say 22, but the computer said 23. Either way, I had the computer take a very long time, and the continuations look excellent.

Black has an extremely small advantage after 3...Nxe5. All other lines give White a small advantage, but nothing significant for Live Chess play.

At Depth = 23, White has a tiny + 0.17 advantage after 3...d5, which translates to nothing in OTB play.

I like the idea of playing both 3...Nxe5 and 3...d5, as both moves require White to solve a problem on the next move. Whenever I can give my opponent a problem to solve in the first few moves, I am happy. On that note, I always get a pause from my opponents after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6, always gaining time on the clock. I guess that they are more familiar with 2...Nc6. And 2...Nf6 does present a problem/headache. The threat is 3...Nxe4, in a 1.e4 opening! Who wants to lose their main center pawn that fast?!