The reversed philidor, something else than the main lines.

By now, I'm sure we've all beaten the Ruy, Scotch, and Italian to death.

Okay sure, we may like playing the white side of it, but if you get tired of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3rd move mainlines, I suggest trying this 3.Be2 move revived by Jobaava this past year.

Sure, it will not give any advantage in all liklihood...but you are likely not good enough of a player to keep it anyways 

Try 3.Be2, we've all seen the Jobava vs Bok game....a romantic era and beautiful chess game, but just last month he played Svidler, and yeah one game may not convince you, but I find this game rather inviting since it showcases a lot of white's ideas.

I mean, some of you may not want a Berlin or regular scotch so....

If I had any clue of what Jobava was doing I'd probably try it. Moves like 16.Bc1 won't do me any favors lol.

Thanks for sharing this game. Interesting.

Very nice, still reminded me of a Ruy, but without the typical ideas to harass the bishop.  I like his outlook - no need to win the opening, simply emerge with a playable position and let the middlegame talk for itself. 

I don't like playing the Black side of the Philidor, so no way I would play it with the white pieces !

I would rather try 1.b3 without having studied it that this (3.Be2).

Honestly the middlegame position just reminded me of a d3 Ruy or d3 Italian with a less-usefully placed LSB...so why not just play one of those lines?

Modern GMs know there are many ways to get a playable middlegame. White didn't get any theoretical edge out of the opening, but he got a playable position. 

As others have pointed out, these sorts of positions can be found in numerous openings. As an occasional guest in a +2700's repertoire, it doesn't stink, but I doubt any +2700 will be using it regularly. Like some acquaintances, it would begin to smell if it were around too much.

I like positional positions like this, but only when I am the one with the nice position :)

These kinds of openings are a grind, and to me it just gives you more work to do than you otherwise would. Statistically most serious chess players score worse with black than white; in most individual games color won't matter, but in the long run it makes a difference.

The main plus side here of course is that you don't have to worry about theory too much. Nonetheless, with moves like 1 d4, usually the worst that will happen is you get an equal position (when in doubt make some wise centralizing move), and that's if your opponent knows a lot more about the opening than you do. A lot of times natural, reasonably safe moves still lead to an advantage. For those doubting me, I'm an expert and it works just fine. Maybe at higher levels it's different.

I am sorry, but if it makes the black position easier to play, it is worse. Maybe with "best play" it does not change the result (and that still calls for proof), but still.

Otherwise, by this logic, ...Qxd6 and ...Qxf7 are equally good moves in the following position, when the former is obviously "better" :

IronTiger, then what is your take on moves like Carlsen's d3 Berlin?  Or Kasparov's idea of a King's Indian Attack setup?  

Be2 is a normal move.  It develops the bishop to a decent square, and it is not subjected to future harassment as it might be in the Ruy or the Italian.  It can later support e4 via Bf3, or retreat back to f1 if necessary.

I mean, are there some positives to the position that balance it?  And...what is very interesting is a super-GM exploring a position that was denigrated for many years from the Black side, and now using it on the White side, to steer clear of the "drawish" Ruy.  

White has chances for an advantage out of the opening with d3 in the Ruy Lopez because the light-squared bishop is outside the pawn chain.  

Locking the king's bishop inside the pawn chain makes it passive and affects White's ability to get active play. Both moves are fine but one is just objectively better. 

Anyway this game seemed a little easier to understand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAJBNieB0kU

Be2 versus Bc4 :

Advantages :

• cannot be harassed by a later ...d5
• can access the f3 square

Drawbacks :

• does not threaten anything of value (f7, d5)
• will get trapped after d3
• will need a second move to fully develop (to f3 or elsewhere)

In the absence of deep positional ideas that none has mentioned so far, or tactical lines that I doubt exist, it's a no-brainer about which gives the best fight for the advantage. (the ability to retreat to f1 is an attempt to change "blocked by a later d3" from drawback to advantage - I am not impressed)

d3 in the Ruy has much wider implications. I don't know what you mean by "Kasparov's KIA setup".

This article - http://www.chess.com/article/view/kasparovs-blitz-recommendation

I guess my thoughts are this...you forgot to add "lack of theory" and "lack of familiarity" to the Be2 line.  Even though there are many principles, one move difference can make a big difference in a position (And I know you already know this).  I am positive Jobava had been preparing lines, but are there reasonable lines in the Tayler with Be2?  

I don't think the issue is theory at all. You don't need any theory to get out of the opening for either side and that's the main reason I could see for playing it. White just wants to get a position on the board and play. I don't think Black's familiarity with the position is a big factor other than by coincidence. But I could be wrong about this stuff.

Honestly, the bishop in and out of pawn chain concept is a bit overrated, a "bad" bishop on e2 isn't such a bad thing, as the pawns wont always be on d3 and e4.

Sure, you can make a case for it, but I'm not particularly convinced, and apparently not many GMs are either.

Elubas, I don't think that is the point.  I think the point is that Be2 is reasonable, and White walked into the middlegame with a playable position.  

Sure, but there are many ways to do so, and 3.Be2 is a particularly unattractive one (at least in my opinion, for the reasons I mentioned earlier).

I disagree with the description of 3.Be2 as harkening back to the Romantic era in chess. 

There is no gambit played, 3.Be2 does not affect the center in any obvious way, and is hardly an aggressive idea. 

If anything, 3.Be2 is an ultra-refined attempt to reach positions similar to the d3 Spanish or Italian, which are hardly Romantic ways of playing the opening.