Petrov drawish?

What specifically are moves in the Petrov that create such a drawish result that even top players are not up to it?

Maybe it is drawish, but in that case it is drawish for grandmasters, we are not grandmasters. By the way, draw is good for black generally.

The main line (with 3. Nxe5) 41 % of the games ended in a draw. Petrov is a safe and for me it seems like a bit boring opening. If you want more complicated gamed then play 2... d6 or 2...Nc6

Drawish is really not the right thinking, in my opinion.

ALL games are "drawish" if taken to their best moves, although it would be hard pressed for me to prove that on my own. However, the word "drawish" being tossed on the table some many years back has taken new learners from even looking at it. And now we have a game with an edge. One player plays from much study, the other plays from the seat of his pants, so to speak.

Eventually, "seat of his pants" will introduce a move that is non-book, and it will either cinch the game for the well studied Petrov player, or seal his coffin. As for specificity of moves, I remember seeing a book at the half price bookstore, Winning with the Petrov. What it might have shown would be that there are several different paths within the game that either player can venture into.

I say "might have shown" because I didn't buy it.

After all, I don't want to learn how to play a drawish game. I want to win. Just joking. Well, I didn't buy it, but symetrical games don't really go with my personality. I like fun, adventure, plenty of room to make good moves and a bad move now and again, and still keep onto the game.

IF you think it's drawish, then maybe study it over, find a new niche inside of it (the first four moves, and most groups of four moves well into the middle game) present a person with over 271 billion choices. Find one that interests you.

d=^))

Well, I don't know but nobody but NOBODY says how the symmetrical play might favor black mentally, as white is normally creating the threats so white might get frustrated and black now has an advantage, plus drawish isn't bad. If it was lossish(that black losses a lot) then it would be bad, but draws are often the best results you can get at GM and engine level, and if you want to become good at chess you gotta think of what moves do you think are the best and analyze them, you got to act like an GM to become one. So drawish isn't really bad, plus it isn't really drawish, when it died a lot of people said the same, and look now. Top players all around the world play it frequently or at least occasionally, play the petrov. And I might be wrong, but in my opinion, the Petrov is the best opening ever. Obviously this is just my opinion, and I don't mind if you say like if the Najdorf is the best opening, like that's fair. Now, at least considering the mental edge the Petrov gives you as black, at least you should say(now, this is also my opinion) that the Petrov is at least an elite opening. So keep in mind this is my opinion. Thank you for reading!

I think the Petrov's reputation for draws stems from a line that white can force early that quickly leads to a dead even end game; however, this is a decision white must make at the start, because the other lines of the Petrov are far more decisive. The Petrov is pugnacious.

... the reason for resurrecting a topic that's been dead for 12 years.

...and then the stink bomb gets thrown into the thread.

okay, my reason was kinda funny to start this, but you know what magipi? Let's just let this thing die, again. Okay? (I didn't look at the last comments date, so I didn't know this topic had been dead for 12 years, sorry.)

I think it stems from it actually being drawish statistically and from top rated players and analysts stating it is drawish. Sure white can play aggressively such as queenside castling, his chances are less good then.

I think we should just let this rest. I mean, it has been 12 years since the last thing was said, so lets just let it rest.

I am fairly sure against equal competition I have won more games with the Petrov than drawn. I do have the "Winning with the Petrov" book, which I purchased back in the day. I also have the massive Petrov book by Artur Yusupov, which you might look up on Amazon. Used copies in good condition go for quite a nice sum, but I am not interested in selling mine so please don't ask.

I see a used one on Amazon for $280. I got mine when it was new. 434 pages and 2.35 pounds of every known line at the time. Also published by Edition Olms, whose books I have always felt are of a very high quality. But I think you would really have to WANT to play the Petrov if you were to purchase one now.

I think it's the symmetrical pawn structure combined with the fact there aren't a ton of good ways to deviate. But in online games there aren't tons of draws in hardly any opening, even at high elo. So I suppose for an online player what it means is that the game is not going to be too eventful, but if you master your endgames and enjoy that playstyle you'll probably do well.
What's really good about it is it takes control of the game very quickly.

Hi, this are a few lines in my new book "Chess Openings - An Introduction" regarding the Petrov, after which main variations are analyzed:

To not end up in a drawish endgame, white need to know what he is doing.

Here is a line that Mikhail Tal himself experimented with and I recommend it because it can really mess with your average petrov player:

VirtualMichael, the Petrov's drawish reputation basically stems from the mainline where both players have the Q's staring at each other from e2 and e7,and one or two minor pieces out for each side, typical pinning other pieces, and one pawn each advanced, white's to d3 and blacks to d6.Every Petrov player has seen this position countless times and it reduces to a queen-less end game by move 20.This line is chosen by white very early ,either because white doesn't know much about the Petrov and this seems a very natural way for the game to go, or white knows quite a lot about the Petrov and has no intention of getting into a brawl and is willing to try and win a very balanced and difficult endgame.

It costs so much because it is out of print and the theory is highly dated.

There are books a decade newer that are also somewhat dated, like the one from Sakaev.

Lakdawala has a couple of them on the Petroff - I own the latter of the two from 2019. The one published by Thinkers Press is fairly recent. There's a lot out there on this NON-DRAWISH Opening. The Berlin is drawish, not the Petroff.

The main reason amateurs see the Petroff as drawish is because the advantages that either Black or White get tend to be more positional in nature. It is not about blasting the king. It is about executing small advantages.

Take a look at the following post, which is a Petroff I played over the board on Saturday:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/why-you-dont-memorize-openings

Once the trade of knights on e5 occurred, Black's strategy shifts. With him now having an e-pawn instead of a d-pawn, we have a very similar scenario for Black that White typically sees in the Exchange Ruy Lopez, but because Black traded Knights both times and not Bishop for Knight, both sides have the Bishop Pair.

So now, Black goes for trades. Just like White's case in the Exchange Ruy Lopez, if all the pieces get traded off, Black almost certainly wins as White can do nothing with his majority.

However, this type of game is a lot slower and requires a long grind to win, which in turn can leave more room for error, and sometimes draws happen that way, which falsely inflates the draw rate. Then it is drawn not from the opening, but from middlegame or endgame errors.

But in that game, Black never really errored. Sure, Black (myself) may not have played the absolute best move every time, but it was never enough to outright lose the advantage once it got down to just the Bishops. Black SLOWLY proceeds to advance his majority on the kingside and only making preventive moves on the queenside. He forces one Bishop off and then the other, and turns his kingside majority into a passer. After 50 moves, not 30 or less, White resigns. That is the nature of the Petroff. People label it dull, boring, and drawish because they assume symmetry, endings, and grinding are boring and don't appreciate games like this one where Black entire plan practically the whole game is so easy to understand - it is just an approach that takes a lot of moves to execute.

I can see how the middlegame were similar to an exchange ruy reversed. And in this game it gave you good play. But on human level, I would consider trading the knight on e5 + allowing the queen trade to be close to loosing because of the reason you mention.

There is nothing in the opening that makes sure that you end up with this pawn structure. In the exchange ruy lopez you always get this pawn structure.

Guys, I think revived this forum, what was I thinking, now we will have 12 years of arguments, and my reason for doing this:"I Don't know" .(At this point just continue the argument)