Philidor Defense: Is it worth playing as Black?

Micky, my position is that the Philidor is a bad choice for players below ~2000 because they tend to get passive positions that are lost by move 20. This is the same reason I don't recommend the Pirc to lower rated players. 

The Philidor is not played very often in serious games between Grandmasters. I trust them. They are professionals and won't play openings that give them very little chance to win, and they don't even get 50% draw rates. There's very little incentive for any GM to make the Philidor a repertoire choice.

That leaves players who are ~2000-2400 in strength. Those players may be able to get away with playing the Philidor, usually from a Pirc move order. There are some nice traps and tactics in the Philidor, and there are some tricky move orders that will appeal to strong amateurs. 

But that's about it. It's not an "ok" repertoire opening for the vast majority of players, and it's not "ok" for chess professionals. There's only a very small band of players that it is "ok" for. 

I just looked in the book by Chernev and there are many examples that the knight is not place on F6 like you profess it has to be. There are more than one variations.

Here is the link I posted about the book in question:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/irving-chernev-winning-chess-traps?page=1

Now, are you sure you are an IM? Prove it, your rating isn't very good!

Well well, it seems that quite some experienced players are still in unsure terms about Philidor!

If you do not want to play the Spanish or Sicilian in response to 1.e4, what would be the hottest opening that can be adopted, say, after 1...e5 2.Nf3...? Between the Philidor and Petrov, which one would give better attacking (or defensive) chances for Black? I hardly see anyone reply 2. ...Nf6 leading to a Petrov. I thought the option of the Petrov Gambit after 3.Nxe5d6. 4.Nxf7...is very exciting! But I rarely see it in online chess!

I am a firm believer that under 2000, most any opening is perfectly playable. And many over 2000.

I remember 25 years ago when the grandmasters all told us "Don't play the Berlin! It's junk!" Now they all love it.

The Scotch was supposed to be garbage, until Kasparov started playing it.

I remember when Grandmasters all loved the KID, and hated the Gruenfeld.

Now they all play the Gruenfeld, and avoid the KID.

Grandmasters change their minds, faster than my little sister changes clothes. Most weathermen are more consistant.

Pfren, thanks for the observation. Is it Petrov or Petroff? Anyways, the Knight sacrifice in this line in exchange of two pawns and an awkwardly positioned Black King seems quite exciting for White as well. Isn't it the Cochrane Gambit (C42)?

How would you assess the above position after the 8th move? I have copied it from a real game. I thought both Black and white in this case had reasons for excitement!

I was searching chessgames.com and I saw wins for White are more than that of Black with this gambit, but games played by highly rated players were more frequently drawn. The excitement factor was nevertheless plenty. For example:

or

and

There are many such examples which does not indicate that this opening is dull or dubious. By the way the position shown in my previous post was from a game which White eventually won and rating of Black was nearly 1800, White was above 2400!

Regarding the spelling of the name. In Russian, it has always been Петро́в.

Before the Russian Revolution, the transliteration from Cyrillic to  the Latin alphabet was "Petroff", and that is how Alexander Petroff wrote his name when using Latin. However, the "B" in Russian is pronounced "v" and the modern spelling is a better representation of how to pronounce the name.

Now, either spelling is acceptable, but Petrov is becoming more common. In Russia and most of the rest of the world, the opening is known as the "Russian Defense". If you use that spelling, you'll be right every time.  

Thank you SmyslovFan for the nice narration!

That approach is great in my opinion. I have tried such approach out several times with different openings and/or lines and then in between looked at master games with that opening or line. A good reason why I think it is a great approach, is that I think it is much easier to explore and understand the theory once you have personal experience with the opening or line.  And you also get very exciting games where you have to think for yourself.

After doing such a thing for a while I usually need a break from that kind of approach and play the openings I am familiar with. And then later on I take another adventure into the unknown, then back to the familiar stuff. Gradually you will have more openings and lines which fit into the label "familiar stuff".

There's a new book out on the Philidor that may be of interest. I don't have a link at the moment tho.

Philidor is passive. Have no surprise element. Any defense against e4 except Philidor.

What a night at the Opera House? No Phantom that night! 

I did not realise that this thread is over 4 years old. Still the same old protagonists. Great stuff from then, and well worth the revival. 

Btw, I found that Jeremy Silman has a similar opinion of the Philidor to mine. In a review of Christian Bauer's The Philidor Files, Silman states that the opening is too complex for players below 1800, but he believes it's fine for players 1800-2400 strength. Part of the difficulty that he discusses is the various move orders using the Modern (1...d6) vs the classical (1...e5) move orders. He says that the lines are extremely complex and transpose confusingly, making it too difficult for players under 1800. 

I'd have to dig up his review to find his exact words. It's been too long since I read it to be able to quote it. 

SmyslovFan wrote: "... In a review of Christian Bauer's The Philidor Files, Silman states that the opening is too complex for players below 1800, but he believes it's fine for players 1800-2400 strength. … I'd have to dig up his review to find his exact words. It's been too long since I read it to be able to quote it."

"... THE PHILIDOR FILES is a magnificent piece of work, and offers Black a very interesting, very thorough repertoire choice vs. 1.e4. The analysis is copious, and is too much for players under 1800. However, those from 1800 right up to grandmaster will find this book to be a must own if they dream of playing the Philidor, or if they open with 1.e4 and have to face it." - IM Jeremy Silman

http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Philidor-Files-The-p3838.htm

A statement about the opening or about the book?

Sorry, RubenHogenhout.  Black "a piece up and winning" is extremely temporary.  Continuing #51, 8. Qb5+, and white ends with still a pawn up.  (I'm not taking any credit here...I did the Go to Analysis thing after your last move.)

@kindaspongey, thank you for finding the link. I had read the review years ago.  As I mentioned, I didn't remember the quote exactly. I think it applies to both. You'd have to ask Silman directly whether he was also making a larger point about the opening, but I think it can be read that way.

But, what is wrong with Nc6? Black seems to have a pretty solid position.