not even sure, the petrov is just super solid and hard to even refute as white
Why would someone play it!? It's soooooo boring
fabiano would really disagree with that statement
So would Eric Rosen. And me. I destroy people online with the Stafford.
not even sure, the petrov is just super solid and hard to even refute as white
Why would someone play it!? It's soooooo boring
fabiano would really disagree with that statement
So would Eric Rosen. And me. I destroy people online with the Stafford.
Stafford is fine in blitz but, in a long time control game it can be a bit dubious
What's the purpose of 7. ...Ng4 ?
It's the cleanest solution, as it is threatening a couple of things. The computer also likes 7...Qe8, which does need some care after 8.f4, and 7...Ne4 which is the silicon idiots darling, but for practical play it does have an issue: after 7...Ne4 8.Qf3+ Black has to play 8...Ke8 "and Black is winning" (Stupidfish), but you understand that being forced to stay with a king at e8 for a long time because Stupidfish claims that Black is winning is not a very practical solution- right?
7...Ng4 on the other hand is very clean, as after 8.Qf3+?! Kg8 Black is close to winning, and protecting the e5 pawn by 8.f4 loses at once to 8...Bxc5.
Thanks for your response, I managed to see what happens after 7. ...Ne4 8. Qf3+ Kg8?? Until now I had been following Sakaev's 6. ...Nc6.
not even sure, the petrov is just super solid and hard to even refute as white
Why would someone play it!? It's soooooo boring
fabiano would really disagree with that statement
So would Eric Rosen. And me. I destroy people online with the Stafford.
Stafford is fine in blitz but, in a long time control game it can be a bit dubious
A bit dubious? If your opponent knows how to counter it, then they will be a pawn up.
not even sure, the petrov is just super solid and hard to even refute as white
Why would someone play it!? It's soooooo boring
fabiano would really disagree with that statement
So would Eric Rosen. And me. I destroy people online with the Stafford.
Stafford is fine in blitz but, in a long time control game it can be a bit dubious
A bit dubious? If your opponent knows how to counter it, then they will be a pawn up.
i mean dubov did beat hou yifan with the stafford gambit thou she didnt accept the gambit and that game is kind of unfair so i dont count it
That's why you accept it.
not even sure, the petrov is just super solid and hard to even refute as white
Why would someone play it!? It's soooooo boring
fabiano would really disagree with that statement
So would Eric Rosen. And me. I destroy people online with the Stafford.
Stafford is fine in blitz but, in a long time control game it can be a bit dubious
A bit dubious? If your opponent knows how to counter it, then they will be a pawn up.
i mean dubov did beat hou yifan with the stafford gambit thou she didnt accept the gambit and that game is kind of unfair so i dont count it
That's why you accept it.
yeah so i dont count that game mostly cause dubov is way better and its not something super incredible but yeah there is no outstanding way to refute the petrov, its just that good
Kind of like how you can't count the high win rate for white of the Sodium Attack, since white was often much higher rated.
I remember I loved playing the petrov as black against 1st graders and they would do some very funny stuff
Play a Colle system variation or any other queen pawn attack and quickly take black's pawn.
Play a Colle system variation or any other queen pawn attack and quickly take black's pawn.
how would you play a Colle system vs the Petrov?
Players rated 1000-2000 on Chess.com think the Caro and the Petroff are sooo boring! But top grandmasters manage to find plenty to fight for. Maybe it's the players, not the openings
Caro isn't boring tbh. Though you are probably right about it being the players and not the opening