I think the philidor is solid and sound and gives Black chances for decent counterplay. That said, I believe the safest way to reach a good position using the Philidor is the modern approach of 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 e5
Why not the Philidor?
Sort:
ChristianSoldier007 wrote:
If you are comfortable with a bad f8 bishop then by all means play the philidor
Do you understand what a bad bishop is?
ChristianSoldier007 wrote:
If you are comfortable with a bad f8 bishop then by all means play the philidor
One of the main plans in the Philidor is the ...d5 breakthrough if possible. The ...g6 ...Bg7 idea is also common. Defining a Bishop as bad on move 2 is taking ideas and principles to an extreme. The same can be said of the French, and yet look at its long and storied history of use at International Grandmaster level. The f8 bishop is not reason enough to put the Philidor below any other system.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
Fezzik wrote:
Somebody claims that d6, Be7 and so on isn't passive. If this isn't passive, then the word loses meaning. The resulting positions may be playable if Black walks a very fine line, but I don't believe in it at all. I still think the best way to play the Philidor is by transposition from Modern positions where Black can get g6 (possibly h6 first) and Bg7 in. At least the dark squared B has some hope for activity in that line.
Fezzik, another ludicrous thing he said was that saying a locked in bishop in the opening is "taking opening principles to an extreme"..... just plain ridiculous. If having active bishops (or those that can become active in the near future without loss of tempo) isn't an opening principle then I don't know what is.
I said saying one temporarily locked in piece on move two is not enough to deem an opening weak and I stand by that statement. That truly would be taking opening principles to an extreme. How about the Kings Indian Attack against the French Defense? White plays e4 followed by d3, this "locking in" his f1 bishop. Of course, White plays g3, Bg2, etc, but the Bishop is locked in by the e4 pawn. In spite of this, it is considered a totally sound and active response to the French, and was played by none other than Bobby Fischer as his reply to the French. So I'm sorry, your comments on locked in Bishops are empty in this case. It's simply not enough to base your judgement of an opening on.
AnthonyCG wrote:
I think that in competitive sports this is one of the things that can waste time.
The Philidor like other openings probably could be played at any level but the work involved for it be used successfully is just unnecessary. In general I think that openings are a waste to learn if you are required to work much harder than your opponent. You're already Black and you're making even harder for yourself to get a good game. You are constantly on the lookout for breaks from White while trying to break with ...b5 which doesn't even guarantee you anything. Now compare that with an example like the sicilian dragon where ...b5 and ...d5 gives Black good play even if he doesn't get equality.
All the time White is just making natural moves while you are doing all sorts of elaborate stuff just to keep the position together. There is no way that White is having that sort of trouble - EVER. And then you have to remember all the other choices for a solid game like Caro-Kann, Petroff, French e.t.c; All three of those can get cramped but Black isn't doing half of the worry-work he does in the Philidor. You could play almost anything else and get far easier positions to play.
I feel the same way about the Pirc/Modern. Sure if you use it well you can really crack a guy open with it, but how much work is required from Black to do that? Black is constantly avoiding e5, and plenty of sac ideas on f7 and g5. Now how much is required from White to do the same? Maybe an h-file win or he just plays a natural e5 and Black is in trouble. Or maybe he just castles queenside and flings his pawns at Black. maybe it won't work out for White all the time but the games are always easier.
Play this if you want but I think you're just making it harder for yourself when you do.
I appreciate your comments and the interest the thread has generated, but I almost feel like you didn't REALLY look at some of the lines I provided which, I might add, aren't just something I conjured up myself, but are recommendations from an International Grandmaster. In the lines I provided, I think Black got pretty clear counter play. Especially note the lines I posted against Queenside castling for White in the Antoshin variation.
Also, as for White's moves all being natural, I'd dispute this. In many Philidor lines, (again, I am speaking mostly of those which arise in the Antoshin) natural moves leave White with at most a slight edge, but often flat-out equality. Take 6.Bc4 in the Antoshin, instead of the mainline 6. Bf4. Most players unfamiliar with the opening would figure it's an excellent square for the bishop, but in fact it's one of the least testing lines of the whole variation!
I end up playing this every once in a while..i have to admit it's not very popular, but everytime i play it, i win as white.
May 7, 2011
0
#28
In my opinion the philidor is solid and underestimated but there are lines that give it trouble with with white for example instead of 0-0-0 right away you can play f3 or h3 preparing g4 and keeping your options open. However even in those lines black with correct play can achieve dynamic equality and sometimes even winning chances. Nevertheless, it's still a matter of taste.
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
The strongest argument against the philidor is that logically it's a weaker move than 2... Nc6 or 2... Nf6. 2... d6?! blocks the dark-squared bishop, doesn't develop a piece, and allows white a central advantage straight out of the gate. In contrast, 2. Nc6 fights for d4 and develops a piece while adequately defending e5. Also, just because it's rarely used at high levels doesn't make it a good choice.. Nakamura did play 2. Qh5 you know! But basically, (in my opinion) the reason 2... d6 is bad isn't because of any tactical refutation or lines, but because it just doesn't make logical sense as a good way to counter in the center. The other funny thing about it is that there are a number of beautifulgames played against it, (Morphy's Opera game, Legall's mate) but I don't know any that were played with it, as it just seems like sort of a passive give-up in my opinion.
And you fail to note that the French blocks the c-8 bishop (and many queen pawn defenses do too), and in the Sicilian Black often plays e6 and d6, blocking both bishops. Why are you content with the bishops in the Sicilian, while you criticize the f8 bishop in Philidor? Also, when you put "d6?!" in the Philidor, why don't you put an "?!" when people play e6 in Sicilian or e6 in Queen's gambit declined? You hypocrite!
LordNazgul wrote:
It's boring as hell.
Did you bother looking at any of the numerous lines I posted in this topic? None of them were boring in the slightest, one of them very similar to a line in the Sicilian Dragon.
May 7, 2011
0
#31
Philidor's is probably fine OTB esp. if you are familar with it, since many of your opponents probably won't be. I remember way back when 7.Nf3 was unplayable (in fact unthinkable) in the Grunfeld Defense - Exchange Var (only 7.Bc4 was "playable") and after decades of this wisdom it was discovered that 7.Nf3 was in fact OK. Likewise, Kramnik revived the obscure & unpopular RL Berlin Defense in no less than his World CH match vs Kasparov who was unable to beat it even once. I've also seen contemporary GMs play unfashionable and unpopular openings such as the Evans Gambit & Scandinavian Defense once every blue moon so who knows? Maybe even Philidor's Defense will one day become a mainstream opening.
Estragon wrote:
It's true that most openings are at least playable at lower levels - the weaker the opening, though, the lower the level it remains playable!
That a 2700 player or a strong correspondence player has played a defense is meaningless. Most established players have a game or two or more with odd openings, usually against weaker opponents, or in faster time control games, or both. So what? Fischer played 1 b3 vs Tutmakov at Buenos Aires, 1970. Does that mean he thought it is a good first move?
No, such openings are used to avoid preparation of the opponent. The Philidor's is indeed passively oriented. The lines which focus on maintaining a strong point at e5 aren't so far removed from the Closed Ruy Lopez - but the differences are all worse for the Philidor's.
The lines where Black gives up the center with ...exd4 are even worse. They simply cannot be good. There is no hypermodern intent here, no deployment which competes for central supremacy (and NO, a tortured Bf8-e7-f8 [insert ...g6] - g7 doesn't count). Just conceding a positional preponderance in the center to White from the first few moves . . . not a prescription for Black to live long and prosper.
Look at it this way: the Philidor is like swimming with weights on. You're saying, "I'm good enough to overcome a lousy opening and beat you anyway!" which is a good confident attitude. BUT if you are good enough to survive with the Philidor, you would really be kicking butt with better lines for Black, wouldn't you?
Nobody is taking any time to review lines I posted, which were suggested by GM Bauer, who actually plays this opening, as well as a few other GMs who play it as more than a "surprise" opening. I have to run off to work, if everyone is too lazy to search the thread, I will repost the lines later.
Black gives up the the centre with exd4 to build up on the e4 pawn. These were the lines I posted and proved to be playable as that is the only variation in the Philidor that is scoring well! Aside from the 1...d6 move order, of course, which is played at top level with a delayed ....e5. Saying "giving up the centre" is not enough any more. Anybody who has studied modern chess literature knows that two bishops, a centre, etc. on their own are not even enough to be considered a true advantage, it depends on the specific position and an assessment can only be made through concrete analysis. I am one of the only posters in this threat who has shown any analysis. Everybody else is just saying "bad, because the f8 bishop" or "the centre is given up". That's not good enough, I'm afraid.
Its a rubbish opening..there's even a quick checkmate that white can do against it..also the fact that the 2nd move shuts in the bishop at once..not good
Tizzee wrote:
Its a rubbish opening..there's even a quick checkmate that white can do against it..also the fact that the 2nd move shuts in the bishop at once..not good
These comments aren't adding anything to the topic. I just noted how people make superficial comments and sure enough, here's another one.
I think the Philidor is too passive. I prefer just the simple king's pawn game and let white choose the variation, even if it means coming a little bit unprepared.
Shall we discuss lines again for a bit?
So looking at your suggestions in the 10. nxf5 line after 11. ...nc6, you are probably right that black has more than adequate compensation if white grabs the d-pawn immediately. 12. g4, then? White does need to start his kingside pawnstorm eventually, and any trade of knights on d5 is favorable for white while black can't really make progress without b4. A database gives 9 games, 7 wins for white and 2 draws, after g4.
shoop2 wrote:
Shall we discuss lines again for a bit?
So looking at your suggestions in the 10. nxf5 line after 11. ...nc6, you are probably right that black has more than adequate compensation if white grabs the d-pawn immediately. 12. g4, then? White does need to start his kingside pawnstorm eventually, and any trade of knights on d5 is favorable for white while black can't really make progress without b4. A database gives 9 games, 7 wins for white and 2 draws, after g4.
Now we're talking. I'm going to give that a look and I'll get back to you a bit later today.
I think black does better in this variation:
In your line 7. Qb3 seems pretty fatal for Black. Where you say Black is doing O.K., I actually think the caption needs to be "White to play and win".