chess against computer

Chess Against Computer

Participate and you will discover!
Funny name, real passions
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
kansaspatzer 35 ( +1 | -1 )
Has the Petrov killed match play for Super-GMs? It appears that the Petrov is more or less a forced draw against e4 e5 Nf3, and thus probably e4, at the highest level.

This would be a critical blow for match play, and one reason why round robin tournaments are the way to go for the rest of the life of the world championships professional chess before the inevitability of draw death in a few years' time.

More: Chess
sf115 22 ( +1 | -1 )
most GM's play 1. d4 at the moment, stopping that problem. I don't think that its a forced draw. Black gets a solid position which, at high level with even players, is usally a draw.
rt4sm 37 ( +1 | -1 )
Petrov is one of the most drawish and boring openings there is. As white i would recommend 3. Nc3 (creating a four knights game, maybe) i think that gives a less drawish game than 3. Nxe5 or 3. d4 even though it creates a closed position. I've not done any serious research on the Petrov def though so i could be way off the mark, this is completely my opinion.
kansaspatzer 15 ( +1 | -1 )
Leko claims to have the Petroff analyzed all the way to a draw, and White could not find a way past it in Mexico, which is why 1.e4 e4 2.Bc4 was even played at one point.
bucklehead 117 ( +1 | -1 )
A few points from a Petrov advocate 1) Nc3 is, in my opinion, a seriously inferior move. I play the Petrov consistently against 1 e4 and find Nc3 thrown at me all the time; in my experience, black gets to set a lot of the tone of the opening after 3 Nc3 Bb4, and I have had a comfortable time with it.

2) Yes, it is "drawish," but let's try to remember the Steinitz postulate that chess is, if played "correctly," a draw by its very nature. In the opening white possesses a small and fragile advantage, and black's job is to neutralize that. The Petrov is an excellent weapon for attaining that goal. It's not generally going to explode into fireworks; but at the same time, there's a lot of territory there that GMs are actively exploring. Keep in mind that, back in the 20s, a lot of the same sort of barbs were tossed at the QG.

3) The "hot" line, though dismissed by many commentators as a sort of stunt, is Nimzo's old idea 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5 d6 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Nc3. Top-level GMs are playing this a lot, looking for new stuff. 3 d4 is also overdue for a comeback. Paulsen's 4 Nc4 may also crop up again.

Remember, the difference between us patzers and top-level players is that, when they see a wall, they don't throw up their hands and say, "God, it's sooooo boring!" With a great effort of will, they look for a way around, or over, or through.
rt4sm 50 ( +1 | -1 )
I know what your saying bucklehead. Unfortunately being the patzer i am i spend too much time looking for ways to quickly win games and make them interesting rather than focusing on tactical and less interesting ideas. That may be foolish on my part, but it means the Petrov doesn't appeal to me and it certanly won't appeal to the neutral fan who understandably wants to be entertained, not bored out of their skin.

If you want to show me how wrong i am just challenge me to a game and you can show me the Petrov in all it's glory:)
bucklehead 59 ( +1 | -1 )
It's not foolish at all It's your style, and if there's one thing I've learned, it's that you can't run from your own style. Look, I'm not saying that the Petrov is for everyone, or that it's not drawish, or that it's particularly fun to watch (it is for *me*, but generally only because I'm interested to see new developments in the theory). Heck, my favorite player is Morozevich, and he's been known to play some pretty terrible chess.

But I think the Petrov has been unfairly singled out as the whipping boy of the can't-stand-the-draws crowd. If you look at the statistics, the 3 Nxe5 Petrov is only marginally more drawish than the Queen's Indian, the Nimzo-Indian, the Catalan, or the QGD.
buddie 13 ( +1 | -1 )
There's always the Boden-Kieseritsky gambit:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nxe4 4. Nc3 Nxc3 5.dxc3
Maybe not sound for super-GMs, but a lot of fun at my kind of level!
rt4sm 72 ( +1 | -1 )
I won't run away! I once tried (as white) 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Nxe5??? That is a 'book' gambit, i found it ineffective, does anyone have any top-secret methods that make it work?

bucklehead; i do agree that the Petrov is unfairly singled out, QGD and Nimzo-Indian are probably equally as dull. I guess the reason boring finger doesn't get pointed at them is because they're more popular. So it would cause outrage if anyone dared suggest all these players are playing unsexy openings that are tired because of centuries of never-ending research.

Does anyone know why QG is called a 'gambit' when white doesn't actually surrender material? Thats something i've never worked out...

ganstaman 119 ( +1 | -1 )
In the Queen's Gambit, white does gambit a pawn. Many times, black gives back the pawn in order to do other useful things. But a lot of lines in the Semi-Slav, for instance, feature this as a real gambit (white pushes forward in the center while black buffs up the queenside). I guess it's not an immediate gambit as the material is known to not be hold-able, but the whole concept a few moves down the line is very much a gambit.

The Halloween Gambit, 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5 was played a lot by Grigor Minchev: -> . There's discussion on the opening there, as well as a link to this site: -> (and somewhere there's another site, but I'm sure google can find it for you). It's great fun, but almost definitely losing for white.

As for the Petrov, I don't think it's going to kill anything, especially since 1. d4 is always a great option. But I do think/hope that in the coming months/years, a lot of work goes into the white side. Or top GMs return to the King's Gambit :)