I know that at my current level I don't need to know any theory of the Petroff as my opponents don't have the slightest clue what to do against it. However, let's say I want to reach a good middlegame against a 2200 rated player (of course at my current level I'd then quickly lose after that). How much theory do I then need to learn in the Petroff? And what are the key lines and plans I need to know in them?
I used to play Petroff without knowing any theory, can easily say you don't need to know any theory to play it.
Edit: 1659-ish players should have at least some clues what to do against Petroff.
Edit 2: Trying to discuss theory seriously on lichess forums will not generally work as expected, you should be happy if this thread gets 10 replies.
Edit: 1659-ish players should have at least some clues what to do against Petroff.
Edit 2: Trying to discuss theory seriously on lichess forums will not generally work as expected, you should be happy if this thread gets 10 replies.
"I know that at my current level I don't need to know any theory of the Petroff"
-- You are right on this.
"of course at my current level I'd then quickly lose after that"
-- You have to believe in your own ability. A defaitist approach is no help. If you reach a good middlegame, then why should you lose quickly? Do you expect yourself to blunder? What is the point of studying opening theory to get a good middlegame position and then blunder quickly? The time were better spent in reaching blunder free play. If you reach a good middle game, then you are more likely to lose in the endgame. Study of endgames is much more rewarding.
"How much theory do I then need to learn in the Petroff?"
-- You do not need to learn anything. Theory of the Petrov extends to like 30 moves deep. It does not really matter if you know 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 or 25 moves deep of this. Chances are that your opponent does not know a great deal about the opening either. If you consistently play the Petrov Defence as black, you face it in about 25% of your games. As your opponent will face 2...Nc6 much more often, he will face a Petrov Defence in like 5% of his games.
And what are the key lines and plans I need to know in them?
-- You do not need to know anything. You must believe in your own ability to find moves and make plans. You also must take time to carefully select your move and think about it long enough. It is better to lose on time in an even position than to lose quickly after a hasty move that turns out to be a blunder.
-- You are right on this.
"of course at my current level I'd then quickly lose after that"
-- You have to believe in your own ability. A defaitist approach is no help. If you reach a good middlegame, then why should you lose quickly? Do you expect yourself to blunder? What is the point of studying opening theory to get a good middlegame position and then blunder quickly? The time were better spent in reaching blunder free play. If you reach a good middle game, then you are more likely to lose in the endgame. Study of endgames is much more rewarding.
"How much theory do I then need to learn in the Petroff?"
-- You do not need to learn anything. Theory of the Petrov extends to like 30 moves deep. It does not really matter if you know 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 or 25 moves deep of this. Chances are that your opponent does not know a great deal about the opening either. If you consistently play the Petrov Defence as black, you face it in about 25% of your games. As your opponent will face 2...Nc6 much more often, he will face a Petrov Defence in like 5% of his games.
And what are the key lines and plans I need to know in them?
-- You do not need to know anything. You must believe in your own ability to find moves and make plans. You also must take time to carefully select your move and think about it long enough. It is better to lose on time in an even position than to lose quickly after a hasty move that turns out to be a blunder.
Well If you are looking for pointers on how to learn more about Petroff then just ask Stockfish 9 on lichess (That s what I have done). Then again if you are like myself you will forget pretty much everything you have learned so it won t benefit you much unless you repeat the theory again and again which is incredibly boring. So to sum it up if you don t plan to invest lots of time on Petroff then you don t need to study it at all you will be better off studying tactics.
"I know that at my current level I don't need to know any theory of the Petroff"
-- But its kind of fun to learn
"of course at my current level I'd then quickly lose after that"
-- Crushed is much more like it.
"How much theory do I then need to learn in the Petroff?"
-- The first five moves for sure.
And what are the key lines and plans I need to know in them?
-- You need to know the Nxe5 d6 variation for sure. Maybe an idea on the 4 knights too.
-- But its kind of fun to learn
"of course at my current level I'd then quickly lose after that"
-- Crushed is much more like it.
"How much theory do I then need to learn in the Petroff?"
-- The first five moves for sure.
And what are the key lines and plans I need to know in them?
-- You need to know the Nxe5 d6 variation for sure. Maybe an idea on the 4 knights too.
@tpr Just thinking without having any theoretical knowledge may lead to losing against traps.
Source: Tried to play against Scotch Gambit without knowing any theory, could barely survive the opening and eventually lost.
Source: Tried to play against Scotch Gambit without knowing any theory, could barely survive the opening and eventually lost.
You cannot prepare for everything. All kinds of gambit: scotch gambit, king's gambit, göring gambit, centre gambit, Belgrado gambit… If you spend your time preparing for all those, then you will have forgotten your analysis by the time it shown up on the board. You need confidence in your own ability to find your own moves.
Marshall spent years analysing in secret his Marshall Gambit, until he finally could play it against Capablanca. Capablanca was unprepared of course, but refuted it over the board.
Steinitz made it a point of honor to accept every gambit thrown at him, relying on his defensive skills and his endgame skills to convert the extra pawn.
You need not fear traps. If you think carefully, you can avoid these. It are the hasty players that tumble into traps.
Defending is in some way easier than attacking. If you think long enough you can usually find the sole move that holds. The attacker usually has a wider choice of plausible moves and he must find a balance in order not to overextend.
In the Petrov chances are much higher of trading queens and rooks along the open e-file and ending up in a symmetrical endgame with light pieces. So it is more useful to study that kind of endgame than to study weird gambits you never face.
Marshall spent years analysing in secret his Marshall Gambit, until he finally could play it against Capablanca. Capablanca was unprepared of course, but refuted it over the board.
Steinitz made it a point of honor to accept every gambit thrown at him, relying on his defensive skills and his endgame skills to convert the extra pawn.
You need not fear traps. If you think carefully, you can avoid these. It are the hasty players that tumble into traps.
Defending is in some way easier than attacking. If you think long enough you can usually find the sole move that holds. The attacker usually has a wider choice of plausible moves and he must find a balance in order not to overextend.
In the Petrov chances are much higher of trading queens and rooks along the open e-file and ending up in a symmetrical endgame with light pieces. So it is more useful to study that kind of endgame than to study weird gambits you never face.
@tpr you are the first person that I've heard saying that defending is easier than attacking.
@noobforlife I'm the second. Defending moves may be only moves, while attacking moves may be one of several plausible-looking moves so it's harder to find the correct one.
I play it occasionally and know the theory of the Petrov to a depth of 4 plies.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.