Petroff defense!

1) I think after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 by playing 2...Nf6 you are overall narrowing the amount of theory you are required to know as black, compared with other move 2 responses. Often white will play 3.Nc3 which isn't very challenging - relatively.

2) I don't know if you can say 2.Bc4 is inferior to 2.Nf3, since top players have played both ways many times. But from black's point of view, I am fine playing against 2.Bc4 which can be an interesting game. I think it is a good way for white to play also.

White can't force a transposition to the Italian from the Bishop's Opening. I personally like this option for black:

It's like a Hanham Philidor but white's pawn is on d3. Black also has the (more common) option of 4...d5.

I like that setup from black - very solid. Also, if you delay playing ...d6 for a move, you can hope for Nxe5? Qa5+ winning the knight!

Stafford gambit of the Petroff def.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAmyYjrC5-I&t=16s

I know this thread has been been brought back to talk about a sideline, but here it goes anyways.

Do you consider a lot of long drawing variations a pro or a con? The drawing tendencies of the Petroff are often overstated, but then again I have this as the mainline of the Modern Attack:

lol there's a much easier way to draw in that line

Yes, but the grand masters play the longer one; I am not really sure why. I wouldn't expect the line I gave to show up in databases with such frequency, but it does.

Here is another one...at my level I really can't imagine someone knowing a drawing variation like these. If someone knew enough to play this they are probably higher rated than me so I would be happy with a draw.

In that variation black is closer to losing than drawing

Most people don't know this though as blindly following a database suggests it's also a draw, but 6...Kxf7 is necessary.

Yeah, I can definitely see myself losing a game like that.

Actually, I was following Andrew Martin's Petroff DVD...

I suppose that is another one that is either a pro or a con depending on how you look at it. I think, I may be wrong, that there are no good books on the Petroff, so you have to do your own work, more or less.

ChessPublishing is supposed to be the authoritative resource on all openings right? Their analysis is more up-to-date and thorough than in any book

Well I know that yusupov001 got ripped off; I only suspect that you got ripped off. The random ad seems to imply that the answer is yes. I wouldn't pay somebody to tell me to take the draw after 6...Kxf7, especially since I read it in their forum a couple of weeks ago for free.

You missed the point, that one was a pro. The only grand master that I ever spoke to in person told me to build an opening repertoire to improve. Yes, he acknowledged that the result will not be worth anything, but the process of doing so will prove beneficial. The first was not a pro or a con; it was a lament that I can't find anything better to do with my free time then try to prove that chess is a draw with best play. I would rather avoid long lines that don't leave much chess to be played, but I have to face reality.

If you are playing someone 300 points up, you should be ecstatic if they go for the wimpy draw line!

If you are facing someone that is 300 below you, and you fear they are going for the draw line when they play 3.d4 instead of 3.Nxe5, play the 4...Nc6 variation.

I'm curious as to why 4...Nc6 isn't played so often, are there drawbacks to that line?

You don't say.  As compared to Sicilian lines specifically?  Hm.

Wow,  impressive way to force a draw. I think I will open a post to look form more similar lines.  Useful against stronger opponents.  Thanks

Its fun. People call it drawish, but in the Damiano variation there are tons of traps, and the Stafford gambit is just amazing for attacking

Nice mistake. I take on e4, you do so on e5, I play d5, and I'm much better