Petroff Defence Bishop Gambit!!! New line

Hello guys!

I was playing a tournament in my house with my friends. We've discovered a gambit on Petroff Defence!

That's the sequence:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 Nxc3 6.dxc3 Be7 7.Bf4 0–0 8.Qd2 Be6 9.0–0–0

Okay, in this position I just played Qd7. But later, we've discovered the move Bxa2! This smash the white castle! Now b3, a5!, Kb2, a4, Ra1! (Kxa2?, axb3+, Kxb3, c5! Black is better, now just Qb6 and let's go to the mate), Bxb3, cxb3, Nd7! with good attack.

It's better than that isn't it? ...  I think the OP's analysis refuting Kxa2 is good... Otb in blitz you could trap some strong players with that line I think.  But I don't think black has compensation for the piece -- White's king is only moderately explosed, and the real problem is that Black's pieces aren't quite ready enough for the attack. I think Black is a few tempi short of having a winning attack.  But I'm a conservative player and no tactical mastermind... maybe a real attacker sees something there.

I don't understand black's last move Nd7... continuing the line, my first thought defensively for White would be b4, the fewer lines opened the better. I don't see how Black makes headway from there.

Oh, I didn't look at how we got there.

Actually the Nc3 line is a topical one in the GM fraternity.

And the laugh may be on you... here's a game from the game explorer that follows that line both Nc3 and 000.  2584 qualifies as a strong player IMO.

http://www.chess.com/games/view.html?id=4135962

Trust you or trust the regular string of GMs who have been trotting this out in the last year or two? I know which one I choose.

And the credentials we're to base this trust on?  You seem so bored by your own comments that you fall asleep midsentence (Or does zzz mean something else?). Is that meant to be convincing?

Here's a spectacular White win on the Petroff 5.Nc3  9.000 line... -- this is quite a nice game from White -- go ahead, you tell Golubev he played weak here! It involves multiple sacs to open up the Black king... it's actually a rather similar idea to the OPs, but from White. -- I can just hear IM Pruess commenting on this game: "Oh, Golubev is angry, these are angry moves..." 

Also checked my DB, 5.Nc3 is the third most popular move and the best scoring - 63% for White!

Would you just clarify that for me?

"scoring "minus" 63% for White!" or "scoring "hyphen" 63% for White!"

Thank you.

In New In Chess Yearbook 88, IM Merijn van Delft looked at 9...Bxa2!? in almost exactly the same position (in the line he looked at, Black had played ...Nc6 instead of ...0-0).

See this review, which was what I remembered when I saw your move: http://www.chessvibes.com/reviews/review-new-in-chess-yearbook-88/

No, I'll leave it up to your considerable intelligence to work out whether minus 63% would be the best scoring move for White in the Petroff.

I know nothing of Petroff's Defence, and don't have any idea if this particular line is a doomed one. In that context other moves might be worse, anyway thanks for the information.

Just because you're a good player doesn't mean you're always right about everything. Grow up.

And I invite you to play that position against Kasparov. What is possibly your point?

Given I'm currently rated higher than you, you can keep your trap shut.

Your opinion clearly doesn't have more merit than the fact that a) GMs regularly employ this move, and b) White scores very heavily with the move. I'll take weighty stats and GM praxis above your opinion any day.

Yes, of course, that's what White is searching for -- something more solid to use against the Petroff. Sheesh.

Hogwash.

I fail to see what this has to do with your previous posts.

Anyway, the Petroff's traditional main lines (with Nxe5 d6 Nf3 Nxe4 d4 d5 etc etc) are pretty symmetrical. Symmetry has a tendency to lead to very solid but also very drawish lines. On top level, this line has become a very successful drawing weapon for Black.

Now, to me, "solid" means "less risky, but also putting less pressure on the opponent" (if a move is just less risky without any disadvantages, you wouldn't describe it as "more solid", but rather as "better"). In chess you need to take risks to improve your winning chances.

Which is why 5.Nc3 has been so popular in the last decade or so, and why it's scoring better (in terms of number of wins) than the traditional main lines -- precisely because it is less solid and less symmetrical -- more chances of losing, but also more chances of winning!

The rest of your vague comments and mentioning of the Ruy just make it harder to take your seriously.

Yea, you're right. Do you guys want to play a tournament about this line?