Dealing with the Petroff

Recently people have been playing the petroff defence against me, more so over the board than online but I see it online once in a while too. My main problem with it is that, more often than not, it leads to very boring symmetrical positions where I have a hard time finding a way to win as white. Sometimes if I try too hard to unbalance the position somehow and play for the win I just end up worse. I have been playing what I think is the main line as white: 3.Nxe5 d6. But after 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5. 6.Bd3 Nc6 (or Bd6, or Be7, all are pretty boring it seems)7.0-0 I know the basic ideas for both sides but I find that it usually leads to a boring drawish game. I am thinking about playing 3.d4 instead because it seems a bit more tricky.

There is no way I am going to play 3.Nc3 either, that just seems waaaay too boring and I hate blocking my c-pawn so early (yes I play the ruy lopez and italian lol) and I am not going to play the cochrane gambit either, I know garbage when I see it. So does anyone have any lines they like to play against the petroff? Any experience with 3.d4? I don't mind if black gets an equal position I just don't want it to be symmetrical and drawish.

I play this line against Petroff's defense.

1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3.d4, it's sound and leads to a more unbalanced position.

As someone who played the Petrov for 20 years, your comments make me smile.

And I will say that I always preferred seeing my opponents play 3 Nxe5 versus 3 d4. Both are strong, just my own preference.

These days, when I face the Petrov as white, more often than not I mess around with something GM Alexander Morozevich has played from time to time: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5 d6 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Bd3!? This, surprisingly for an opening where you block a key pawn right away, is solid and does not suck. The bishop can later be played to f1 after 0-0; alternatively, you can proceed with c3, Bc2, and d4.

To be clear, this is not an "antidote" for the Petrov, though the numbers are not unfavorable for white: 182 wins, 120 draws, 84 losses according to my database. The main advantage is that it doesn't feel like a Petrov, but something completely different. And that may be enough for you.

[Edited to change the embarrassing typo Bc3 to Bd3...sorry]

Thanks for the feedback guys. Dimknight you mean 5.Bd3 in that Morozevich line right? I think I might try that it seems like I could reach sort of a lopezish position with pawns on c3 and d4 and a bishop on c2. I will have to try it out.

I looked at 3.d4 a bit the other day in the database and it does look more interesting than 3.Nxe5. I remember one of my opponents who plays the petroff said d4 is the more modern approach, I am not sure if that is true though because it seems like Nxe5 is played in more games.

Petrov literature occasionally refers to 3 d4 as the "Modern Variation." Of course, this name was bestowed upon it decades ago; and indeed, 3 d4 is somewhat out of favor, as top-level play focuses on 3 Nxe5.

I like this line.  e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 d6 Nf3 Nxe4 Nc3!?  Black can choose to play Nxc3, but White will capture dxc3 and castle queenside with an eventual pawnstorm on the Black kingside.

Ya that does sound like an interesting way to unbalance the position, even bxc3 might be worth looking at. I do like to attack so the opposite side castling could work out well, especially against weaker players. I will check this line out for sure.

I've had a few over the board games, and one Corr. game, where I played the line 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5 d6 4 Nxf7, and that gave me a winning advantage. However if Black knows best play against that line, he/she will come out on top!

But why can't black just castle queenside also? Then he would simply have a strong kingside majority. I've seen it before and have lost to it a few times, but I think I could try that next time.

But black would have the kingside majority, so would that endgame be drawn?

I think after 5. Nc3, Nxc3  6 dc it is a little early to be talking about a drawn endgame.

There is plenty of play in what is known as the "middlegame" which requires exacting play from both sides. I have played this line for White for many years--sometimes I win, other times I lose and occasionally it is a draw. It is a very playable line and the K-side attack for White is one possibility though in lines where Black chooses to 0-0-0 a different strategy is needed.

It is a game for both sides to win or lose based on their own thinking which is why I like this line. There is not a lot of memorization and once one has played 12 or so games with this line he pretty much knows the various types of positions arising and can adjust accordingly.

I'm just saying, what's white going to do if black castles queenside as well? A kingside attack at that point is very difficult and black is not cramped in the position either. And I was thinking of this position in that petroff line in my head but now I realize black has no kingside majority! Then indeed white may be better off throughout, if very slightly though and it does seem to head for a draw.

It's another dull line in the petroff if black castles queenside. But what's he going to do? Allow a pawn storm? White's king would be better defended because he has 4 pawns there.

Well aparently theres a line in the petroff where black castles or maybe not and it goes