The philidor is not a good choice.
As for the difference, in the Ruy in case of an early d4 black can play b5 to break the pin on the knight.
In the philidor there's no time (there may not even be a bishop on b5) so white's move d4 is very good.
Petroff vs phillidor
Sort:
Jan 13, 2019
0
#3
Petroff is certainly considered better as the Philidor is rather passive. I've never played it, but anything that has been in play since before the 1850s and still gets top level GM attention today is not to be ignored. The Philidor is older.......but it's been under a cloud at least since Reti's book (in the 1930s).
Petroff opens the center very quickly, so it can get rather sharp, and there's a lot of opposite side castling. But it's certainly not the Italian, and it will put lots of your opponents outside their comfort zone.
Jan 13, 2019
0
#4
AlisonHart wrote:
Petroff is certainly considered better as the Philidor is rather passive. I've never played it, but anything that has been in play since before the 1850s and still gets top level GM attention today is not to be ignored. The Philidor is older.......but it's been under a cloud at least since Reti's book (in the 1930s).
Petroff opens the center very quickly, so it can get rather sharp, and there's a lot of opposite side castling. But it's certainly not the Italian, and it will put lots of your opponents outside their comfort zone.
The Petroff only gets sharp if both players cooperate. Even the lines with opposite side castling are not especially sharp, and black doesn't need to enter them.
A Cunning Chess Opening for Black
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Cunning-Chess-Opening-for-Black-A-76p3899.htm
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9008.pdf
Play 1...d6 Against Everything
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9051.pdf
Jan 13, 2019
0
#7
Play_e5 wrote:
stiggling escribió:
The philidor is not a good choice.
As for the difference, in the Ruy in case of an early d4 black can play b5 to break the pin on the knight.
In the philidor there's no time (there may not even be a bishop on b5) so white's move d4 is very good.
The Philidor is not a good choice? LOL it's totally fine if you use the correct move order:
The middlegames are what make it hard, not the first 3 moves.
And while an engine or strong human may reliably draw with it, meaning it's not objectively bad, it's still technically difficult making it a poor choice for practical play IMO.
Jan 13, 2019
0
#8
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Philidor is fine but rather limited in options if compared to other defenses. That is undesirable in high level but there is no reason to be undesirable in low levels.
I think of it as the opposite. At high levels they might use it to draw. At low levels it's undesirable because it's difficult to play.
That's why you'll usually see the Philidor either from beginners or masters. People in between stay away from it because they get difficult positions (and beginners play it because they don't know anything).
Jan 13, 2019
0
#9
I would prefer Petroff over Philidor anytime. The refutation of Petroff alone makes it worth studying and playing. How many times have it drew against the most fearless attacker Kasparov? Philidor on the other hand is a NooB's defense.
Jan 13, 2019
0
#10
The best way, as Black, to avoid the Italian Game is to not play 1...e5 after 1 e4. The most popular move 1...c5, the Sicilian Defense does not require a high rating or extreme memorization to variations to master if you stick to the Kan (4...a6) or Taimanov (4...Nc6 and soon ...Qc7) and LEARN the ideas behind those opening, where a reasonable non-book move will not result in your demise. Also the French 1...e6 or the Caro-Kann 1...c6, both which usually begin a Q-side counterattack with ...c5 are also good.
On the other hand, you may get an edge playing either the Petroff or the Philidor (I like the Petroff better) but ONLY if you study the ideas behind the openings and the kinds of middlegames that are typically reached.
Don't underestimate the advantage of knowing where the game is headed when your opponent doesn't!
In the 1990's, the Bishop's Opening had been out of favor for 60 years, but I taught it to the high school chess team I coached because they generally had the most trouble trying to plan ahead and the Bishop's Opening (White side) typically involves f4 around move 5, then an Nf3 and soon after O-O-O and a King-side Pawn storm - providing them a blueprint.
Opponents OTB were baffled after 2 Bc4. They had not memorized that opening, didn't understand opening principles well, thought White was going to try the Scholar's Mate and made poor moves defending against it, etc.
We rode the Bishops Opening to win after win and County and State team trophies but then Gary Kasparov played it in a World Championship match. Soon we still had an edge with it because we understood it so well, but everyone was now aware of it.
If you do face the Italian as Black, don't do the anti-Fried Liver Defense. The last few times I've played the Italian Game - which I only do occasionally as a change of pace - my Black opponents always played ...h6 to prevent the Fried Liver attack -which I never intended- and I won all three. As shown in the master results in chess.com's Opening Explorer, ...h6 increases Black's %age of losses - it wastes a tempo if White simply planned a "standard" Italian game.
Note that it used to be exclusively called in English "Giuoco Piano" - "Quiet Game" in Italian - I think "Italian Game" arose because no one but Italians can remember how to spell Giuoco!
Jan 13, 2019
0
#11
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Masters use it to draw?
Masters use everything to draw , from Ruy Lopez to Queen's gambit , so what does that mean?Are they all passive?
I'm implying it's not good enough to play for a win, only suffer long enough to earn a draw.
It has nothing to do with passivity.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Why Philidor is passive? Because the bishop is blocked? But that is the case in all the lines of Closed Ruy and in many lines of Najforf yet no one considers them passive.
I never called it passive, and even if I did, it wouldn't be based on blocking a single piece.
The positions are just ugly. Every game I've ever played against a philidor, even if it's 0.00 in the engine, I like white's position and my opponent uses tons of time trying to figure out what to play while my moves are easy to play. That's why I call it bad.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Philidor can be dynamic if you know how to play it dynamically. GM Williams has used it regularly and he is not a passive player that uses it to draw.
Yeah, I run into some of these lion type players online, and if you've never seen that sort of attack before it can get you a few times. After you know how to deal with it it's no problem. A one trick pony.
If Williams uses a different dynamic setup then I don't know... although he's one of the weakest GMs around who plays all sorts of garbage so using him to argue that it's a fun try is fine, but using him to argue that it's a reasonable opening is probably not so good 
Jan 13, 2019
0
#12
Yeah, that was just my snarky implication, it's not an objective assessment. The philidor is perfectly playable.
Still, for me the philidor is like playing against an old benoni or owen's defense. I'm perpetually comfortable, my moves are easier to find than black's, and even when I lose, it's never the feeling of "I need to study that to figure out what I did wrong" it's just "well my opponent had a shitty position and got lucky in the end, I hope I have better luck next time."
I agree, too, I was tired of the Italian game, and I was afraid to change the way of playing. But fortunately I succeeded in trying other methods without fear.
Jan 13, 2019
0
#14
Play_e5 wrote:
stiggling escribió:
Yeah, that was just my snarky implication, it's not an objective assessment. The philidor is perfectly playable.
Still, for me the philidor is like playing against an old benoni or owen's defense. I'm perpetually comfortable, my moves are easier to find than black's, and even when I lose, it's never the feeling of "I need to study that to figure out what I did wrong" it's just "well my opponent had a shitty position and got lucky in the end, I hope I have better luck next time."
There's no such thing as luck in chess
Well, that's not quite what I meant, but in any case while the rules of chess describe a game with no luck, there is luck when humans play it. Especially during tournaments where the easiest example is the pairing program which literally simulates a coin flip to determine certain things like color.
I'm getting exhaused of the italian game so I'm looking for a way to prevent it. I checked the database and it seems the only viable methods I have are the petroff and the phillidor. The petroff is much more popular, over double played, but I don't fully understand why the phillidor is so unpopular, or much worse than the petroff. While yyou do block your bishop in, you do in the ruy lopez main line too.