I like to play 3. d4 if I face petroff defense as White.
Petrov Defence
Sort:
One possibility is the Cochrane gambit.Topalov has played it against Kramnik.
Cochrane Gambit, seconded.
The most popular alternative to the main line is 3.d4 when the main line is 2...Nxe4 4.Bd3 d5. You can also avoid the Petroff by playing 2.Bc4 and either transpose to the Vienna or Italian game, but there are a few independent lines you need to learn.
blake78613 wrote:
The most popular alternative to the main line is 3.d4 when the main line is 2...Nxe4 4.Bd3 d5. You can also avoid the Petroff by playing 2.Bc4 and either transpose to the Vienna or Italian game, but there are a few independent lines you need to learn.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 Nxe4?? 4. Qe2! d5 5. d3!! Nf6?? 6. Nc6+! Be7 7. Nxd8 Kxd8
The Cochrane is too deep to see it often in OTB master play. It shows up in CC games more often, when the White player has time to analyze. It has that in common with the Goring Gambit, another line that's too deep for the vast majority of masters to risk OTB. If you go through chess theory texts, you'll find both openings assessed by GM authors as "unclear" ... not "dubious".
chrisr2212 wrote:
when i see some of his posts, i don't blame people for saying what do about the irish.
The Irish are no more stupid than the rest of us. I'm only Irish by adoption though, I inherited my stupidity from the English. Nature and nurture.
David Navara had a nice article in "Secrets of Opening Suprises" about the Paulsen variation. Of course he did not promise any advantage for white.
The Cochrane Gambit is surely enough a large advantage... but for the wrong player.
The only worthwhile deviation to the mainline (which is surely enough 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4) is the Nimzowitz variation (5.Nc3) which is probably the least Nimzowitzian of all openings after his name.
LordNazgul wrote:
You don't think that 3.d4 is a worthwhile deviation ?
Not really. The current mainline (3...Nxe4 4.Bd3 d5 5.Nxe5 Nd7) is analysed to death, and white cannot prove anything more than sterile equality. Neither the 3.Nxe5 lines promise something concrete, but at least they are richer.
The Cochrane Gambit is not a serious option. The best method for Black is more or less known, but Sakaev in his recent book effectively demolishes the last hopes for White.
The Cochrane gambit is dubious BECAUSE it only offers full equality for White [I am not sure about that but I'd tend to agree].
But I like to play it and as a Petrov player, did never feel at ease when White decided to sack on f7. Maniacs can be dangerous 
I have gained some experience with it on both sides in an online tournament and it is quite interesting.
I am very sorry, but the only good thing about the Cochrane Gambit is that it does not lose by force. But equality is just a dream for white.
chrisr2212 wrote:
i always play 3.d4 now, and have gotten great attacks, the Petroff bores me to tears otherwise
I agree. The petroff is boring....for just the sheer principle of too many ways for either side to equalize
He can't hear you, he's made a Captain Oates move.
pfren wrote:
David Navara had a nice article in "Secrets of Opening Suprises" about the Paulsen variation. Of course he did not promise any advantage for white.
The Cochrane Gambit is surely enough a large advantage... but for the wrong player.
The only worthwhile deviation to the mainline (which is surely enough 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4) is the Nimzowitz variation (5.Nc3) which is probably the least Nimzowitzian of all openings after his name.
Can you put the link of this article here?
Thanks.
carlesrb wrote:
Can you put the link of this article here?
Thanks.
No, I can't. Secrets of Opening Surprises is a periodical publication by New in Chess.
http://www.newinchess.com/SOS/Default.aspx
I really don't get it....
Why is everyone complaining the Petroff is boring? Yes, the equality is reached sooner than in other openings and White doesn't get a crushing attack on Black's king... but there is still a lot of tactics in the position and a lot of subtle move order differences which an experienced player can use to outplay his opponent.
If you were to play the Petroff against Kramnik/Karpov as either White or Black, do you think you would be able to draw? Really? Don't get ahead of yourselves :)
It is true that you will not win against it nearly as often when compared to Sicilians and you won't get any brilliance prizes either - but you will improve in chess by learning many of the Petroff lines.
So, the recipe for winning in the Petroff is simply - improve in chess - become a better player than your opponent - and then outplay him over the board.
After all, if you cannot play for a win in an equal position... then what is point? It is even possible to win in lost positions (when your opponent doesn't find the very best moves), winning an equal one with a better technique is certainly not a daunting task.
3.Qe2 has even been played once between two 2700+ players!
Ther secret? It was a pre-arranged draw between Mamedjarov and Gashimov... 
what are the more agressive lines against Petrov?