1.e4 d6 2.d4 e5 3.dxe5 dxe5 4.Qxd8 Kxd8

Who can prove that white can get a slight advantage?

I prefere 3.Nf3

3.Nf3 is ok .I think  the end game may favour white

may

Well, 3. Nf3 is a good move, but it doesn't prove anything as far as I can see. In order to prove that white has a slight advantage I think you simply need to look at it in a way like this:

It takes longer time for black to get his king in a safe place and get connection between his rooks because he has moved his king and can not castle, compared with white who can do it faster by castleling and thus have a slight advantage.

Yes , black has some problems with his king

But , this is only theory

in praxis , it is extremely difficult for white to prove that he has something from the opening.

At least the games that have been played so far ,dont show that white has advantage

Black's king is in a similar position ,also in berlin Defence, but this doesnt mean that white has advantage.

Even more important : It is completely useless to know that white can gain an advantage in a position ,if you dont know how.

and in the basic line ,that i refered , there are so many lines ,that black can escape without any trouble, and without any dought in these lines.

My post was not about proving who could win. In order to win there must be more advantages.

My prove was simply that it is an advantage to be able to do something faster than the opponent.

I checked with the ChessBase database and found some interesting numbers. After the move order you suggest (1 e4 d6 2 d4 e5, a relatively rare way to enter the Philidor Defense), 3 Nf3 scores 69.0% for white over 669 games, as opposed to the 58.7% score for 3 dxe5 (with 553 games in the database). Having played against the Philidor regularly for quite some time, the 69% number surprised me, so I backed up a bit.

If you enter the Philidor from the "traditional" way (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6--12,971 games), the transposing move 3 d4 scores less well: only 61.1%. Further, if white plays 5 Bc4 in your main 4 Qxd8+ line, white has historically scored 60.0%. So the real gap in the databases is small.

But there is an interesting question buried in here: if, as the databases show, there is a slight relative disadvantage to the 4 Qxd8+ approach, why should it have been adopted by so many chess luminaries, including Tarrasch, Lasker, Reti, Alekhine, Bronstein, and Karpov?

I think the primary reason is the desire to immediately convert white's theoretical and abstract first-move advantage into something smaller but concrete. For white does enjoy an advantage here: after forcing black to make two reactive moves (4...Kxd8 5 Bc4 f6, for example), white leads in development while black's king is stuck in the center. The loss of queens means that white's attacking prospects have dimmed somewhat, and certainly there are no "soft targets" in black's position. But for some players, this may be preferable to a long and unclear opening struggle against the Philidor, which may be cramped but is entirely solid.

So can I "prove" that white enjoys a "slight advantage" after 4 Qxd8+? The databases already show that, and I suspect the majority of masters would agree. White has not made any mistakes that would nullify his first-move advantage. My feeling is that in chess, as in physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted--and that's precisely what white does in this line, to convert his initiative to something concrete. And yet, as you say, it remains white's responsibility to "prove that he has something from the opening."

my post was not about providing who could win as well

I can prove that white get a big advantage : black cannot castle anymore. Thats precisely why good players dont let that quuen exchange.

Thank you ,for your comments

personally i prefere 3.Nf3 because ,im not positional player

By the way, Lasker has used ,the Qxd8 line , with black pieces in a world championship ,against janowsky ,

Ok probably ,he challenged him ,using his psychological weapon ,cyz he knew ,that david was an attacking player ,specializing in sharp positins ,with the queens on the board.

I remember GM georgiev Kiril has used also many times with black pieces the qxd8 line

From my chess experience ,the preferences of top players , as well as from the fact that philidor defences ,is never played in top tournaments ,

i believe that it is easier for white to fight for the initiative after 3.Nf3

oh my god !

why did you created people rated below 2000 ?

everyone today knows ,that the berlin defence is :

1.e4 e5

2.Nf3 Nc6

3.Bb5 Nf6

4.0-0 Nxe4

5.d4 Nd6

6.Bxc6 dxc6

7.dxe5 Nf5

8.Qxd8 Kxd8

 which happens to be the main line ,and the theoretical desussion of top players even today. Black here scores the best statistics ,than any other defence against 1.e4

I WANT to see this line in the world championship against anand

no surprise ,cyz kramnik ( and stronger players than him) of course already have used this line in top events

and now white has to choose betwwen 9.Nc3 and 9. 0-0

 despite the fact ,that this is the only line that white can claim an advantage ,until now he doesnt have find a line that gives the advantage ,and the discussion continiues with 100 of new games ,on this line every month

9.b3 followed by 10.Ba3 ,doest give white an advantage ,because he looses ,time and the weaknesses in the light squares remain.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but I think we would like this very interesting theoretical discussion to be carried on in as friendly a way as possible.

The Janowski-Lasker WC game is quite interesting. Of course we should remember, as the thread's author pointed out, that Lasker was fond of getting into his opponents' heads, and Reti (among others) theorized that he actually preferred being slightly for the worse. But this is a digression and doesn't answer the question at hand.

LaskerEmmanuel cites GM Kiril Georgiev as a proponent of the 4...Kxd8 line. As far as I can tell, he's played it on four occasions, drawing against the strongest opponent and winning against three weaker opponents (a 2500, a 2335, and a 2160). So again, as evidence goes this is not particularly compelling.

I also find the appeal to the Berlin Defense line to be somewhat off base. You are correct to point out its popularity and relative solidity, but there is a fundamental difference in the positions: in this line of the Berlin, as in many other Exchange Variation types in the Ruy Lopez, black has the two bishops. Further, since white's KB has just been exchanged off, white cannot make the developing/forcing move Bc4. In the 4...Kd8 line of this thread, the minor pieces are balanced and Bc4 is a real threat.

Let's also look at the distribution of results for the Philidor line vs. the Berlin line. The 4...Kxd8 Philidor has seen 40% white wins, 34% draws, and 27% black wins. The 8...Kxd8 Berlin has seen 29% white wins, 48% draws (a notably high number), and 24% black wins. Praxis demonstrates that the positions are not equivalent.

All of this must be tempered by the fact that the sample size for the 8...Kxd8 Berlin is about five times larger than for the 4...Kd8 Philidor. Perhaps if more masters took up the challenge of playing the black side of it, we would find more to love. But I think it's safe to say that opening lines featuring a Qxd8+ queenswap each must be evaluated on their own merits. Masters have favored one and avoided the other.

Dear Friend

i refered the berlin defence ,because someone previously said ,that since the black king ,is in the center , this necessairily means that white has the advantage.

of course ,this is not true always ,and each position ,must be examined seperatelly

thats all i mean

black has the 2 bishops ,but dont forget that white is compensated with the pawn majority on the queenside.

and some guy put a comment previously ,and he deleted it emmediately ,when he realised that he told noncences. \

He told that after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3  Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 ,this is the berlin defence ,and the black king is not in the center....

thats why i replied with the previous letter.

I didnt say that the positions are equivalent, never you will find 2 equivalent positions in chess

And , here is time to justify my strong attacking game :

Why to choose ,1.e4 d6 2.d4 e5  with the black pieces?

if you want to play solidly you can choose a dozen other defences.

Philidor defence , is only for the past.

However , in my opinion , in club level is 100 % playable.

Anyway ,the specific variation of berlin defence ,is very classic and has been played with black pieces for more than 100 years ,from players like:

Pillsbury ,Tarrasch,Lasker Emmanuel ,Keres ,Reshevsky , Kuzmin ,Savon vladimir,Romanishin oleg , Ivanchuk ,Topalov ,Kasparov,Ponomariov ,Eljianov,Karjiakin,Carlsen Magnus, ,Levon aronian, Korchnoi, Spassky ,Smyslov,Anand ,Gelfand ,Hort,the 2 Polgars,Bronstein David,Almasi Zoltan ,Aleksndrov ,Lautier ,Jakovenko ,Ni hua , wang wue,Shirov, Hracek and almost every top player including of course kramnik has used it after 2000.

Oh my god, why did you created people rated higher than 2000 thinking that rating makes them more intelligent than players rated below 2000 ;)

;) i stop tracking this, talk alone ;)

no castle is a disadvantage. end of discussion ;)

You can play Bc4. Developing and attacking the f7 pawn with tempo.

Lasker, I think you and I are agreeing on an essential point: having your king stuck in the center is not necessarily a disadvantage. After all, Steinitz had a history of skipping castling, and he knew a thing or two about chess. But even in these cases, my sense is that he valued something else (for example, the integrity of his pawn structure) over and above the advantage of castling.

My general argument is that the Philidor-type position with 4...Kxd8 (where the king is stuck in the center with no compensating advantage) is certainly worse for black than the Berlin position following 8...Kxd8 (where black obtains the two bishops at the cost of losing castling privileges). The database numbers support that argument.

If there is any advantage, it is with Nf3, but its not much.  I know, I play the black side of this with great results.  As for the 2000 thing, well, without queens, castling really doesn't mean much.  As has been mentioned before, there are variations in all sorts of openings that lead to one side losing the right to castle and yet being fully justified for it, (ie. the position is perfectly fine, playable).

Also LaskerEmmanuel, your rating is hardly stellar, and you seem to have lost twice to someone rated around 1500, so are you cursing God for creating you? If so, I can empathise with your existential anguish, but maybe Chess.com isn't the place to vent it.

I know its hard to visualize for me so heres a pic.

Dear Jaguarphd

i know that you can play Bc4 with tempo , but this doesnt prove that white has advantage ,in this line

Dear DimKnight .

Neither the statistics can prove that white has advantage in this line ,because black probably played somewhere weaker ,or probably there is a line that he didnt see,which equalizes.

Personally i prefer the berlin ,instead of the qxd8 line ,with black pieces.

Dear canada guy

Your comment doesnt need comments

And Dear British guy gabriel  ,about my rating have in mind that

this site is very fg , because the connection is pretty shit ,rubish

and if you lost connection to the server you loose also the game.

have in mind also british guy ,that you start withh 1200 points

and if we suppose that you play 4 games ,and win 4 what rating will you have?

1400?

very smart comment

and dear all

i refered god why did you create people with 2000< rating ,because someone didnt understand which position i have in my mind when i say berlin defence

DrLasker-Tarasch world championship ,berlin defence , now is very rarely played in top level ,and every strong player knows , the classic endgame without queens.

YES !! Im cursing god why created me and i hear all these nonsences !