Why not on the Petroff?

If white wants to win, he can try 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Nc3 Nxc3 6. dxc3. This variation is quite unpleasant for black if they want a drawish game. By the way, this is the reason why I stopped playing the Petrov

An argument against the Petroff is it leaves very few imbalances, which are what leads to winning chances.  The imbalances may be later rather than never especially in amateur play so under master level there seems to be nothing wrong with it, and even at GM level Kramnik defeated Leko with a Petroff before in a famous two rooks vs. queen ending (even in Super-GM practice imbalances show later in the Petroff) and the pawns were on the same side of the board too!  

I know enough Four Knights theory (both the 1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nf6 3.Nc3,Nc6 4.Bb5,Bb4 5.0-0,0-0 6.d3,d6 7.Bg5,Bxc3 8.bxc3,Qe7 9.Re1,Nd8 10.d4,Ne6 11.Bc1 lines and 7...Ne7!? lines.) to not worry about The Four Knights, another good system where imbalances are delayed and there's good scope for creative play and strategic thinking for either side.  

I think that at the top level this is an argument for Petroff rather than against it since draw with black against another super GM is a good result.

The Medjai were a group of warriors devoted to preventing the rise of evil on the Earth, more specifically, the resurrection of the High Priest Petroff. In order to meet this goal, the Medjai stood guard over the ruins of the City of the Dead known as Forumunaptra, so as to guard against those who might interfere with the curse or rob the treasures of the pharaohs.

"We are part of an ancient secret society. For over one thousand eight hundred and twenty five days we have guarded the City of the Dead. We are sworn at manhood to do any and all in our power to stop the High Priest Petroff from being reborn into this world."

You are trying to resurrection the Forum which could lead to a chain of events that causes the next apocalypse.

Normally I like to play 3.Nc3 against the Petroff.

Most times I follow up with 4.Bb5. Every once and a while. I'll mix it up with 4.Bc4 just to confuse my oppoents.

However, the other day I felt like being aggressive. An it was funny the guy I was playing started typing bunch of question marks to me. I thought it was funny. He went off on a rant on how he is not a patzer and I can't be doing these things to him. I ended up getting disconnected from the game in a lost position. However, I thought it was funny none the less. I would of kept fighting on if I didn't disconnect. I could see that I was getting to him in the game. He was about to mess up out of frustration. His time was also low until I disconnected.

The Line I played is called:

                                    Halloween Gambit                                       

It starts at move 4 and it is totally unsound. In a very good way of course.

I doubt the Cochrane Gambit is sound, but it looks like a fine line OTB. I wouldn't want to be Black figuring it out on the fly.

Nah, the King's Gambit is the solution to that problem.

the cochrane is totally sound. it just isnt much. in practice it would probably draw more than the main line.

Fiveofswords: Fascinating. I only noticed it for the first time a few months ago and was amazed to see the likes of Topalov and Short had played it.

Marshall used to play the Petroff and he was an attacking player.  Of course, that was 100 years ago.

Over the years I havent faced the petroff a lot but have done well with the steinitz line against it .  Thanks to the popularity of the sicilian(s) its rare to see the petroff in my experience . 

Yeah I like seeing the Petroff it gives me a chance to practice my Halloween Gambit.

For me, the main reason "why not the Petroff" is because if I want to avoid well-known lines I'd rather use the Scandi for that.  Otherwise, Petroff is certainly not going to lose you the game.

What about 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 Qe7
4. d4  Nxe4 ? Any comments on this ?

Thanks!