Why not the Philidor?

13. Nd5 does look interesting. After the exchange, White can always respond to ...Qa5 with Qd5 protecting the a pawn, etc. It's also an interesting move, because I don't recall seeing it in any theory, so practically speaking, if it continues the game "out of book" it could be strong. I'm going to try to do some analysis on it now and see if I can't find it somewhere.
Oh, as far as the line goes, I'm just trying to show that I think it is playable for Black. Of course White's position is fine and it's a sharp game.

Oddly enough, the database I'm using shows 13. nd5 as both stronger and more common than 13. ne4, but do let me know what you come up with.

And "playable for black" is a low standard.  Nobody's trying to show that the philidor is refuted, but you haven't convinced me that it sets white serious problems in obtaining an opening advantage, either from the practical standpoint (white's moves are all pretty natural) or the theoretical standpoint (I would take white without hesitation in most of these lines).  Why would you personally play the philidor over mainstream sharp, fighting openings (dragon, french winawer) or less sound but significantly more trappy options (ruy lopez schliemann defense, french marshall gambit?)

ReasonableDoubt, in response to #20 - I disagree with you about the "class player" argument.  I enjoy playing the Philidor - often, the game steers into un-theoretical waters, where I gain comfortable positions I know, without having to worry about constant tactical harrassments from White, as I would in some more main-stream openings.  Sure, there are early Bxf7 cheapshots (I hate it, that is one reason I do like the Hungarian against the Italian, as e6 is covered by Bc8), but then you also allow the Ruy Lopez, or the Scotch, or the Four Knights...anyway, I normally play the Philidor with 1...d6 and 2...Nf6, venturing into ...e5.  You should read Bauer's evaluations of the 3...e5 lines.  Personally, I don't like playing Black in the lines you mentioned, but really strong players do play the lines.  However, you can play 3...Nbd7 followed by ...e5, with a similar position.  But some players like to clamp down with ...e5 as quick as possible, and get Philidor-esque ideas.  

Here is my take on it (for whatever it is worth, coming from a "lowbie" like me:

Conzipe, I have used that move order - I have also played 4...Qa5, which is an offbeat approach.  I believe 3...c6 is the Czech Defense, and I do like the idea of waiting on the Philidor, instead of facing the pesky Bxf7 lines.  I don't mind the exchange lines honestly.  I did join your group, I hope there is some 1...d6 discussion in the mix!

RoseQueen, I have no draws with the Philidor, and a 47-53 win percentage with Black, out of 15 games.  My best results are with the French, with 41-59, but I guess it goes down to preference and style - trying to find yourself in the ideas.  I am glad you like to see the Philidor, good for you :-)  

My question for those who criticize the Philidor, what about playing the Ruy Lopez d3 setups?  The main difference I see is that the light bishop has more freedom to roam, but it seems that White has similar pawn ideas in these setups.  Forgive me for not being a huge Ruy fan (sorry, still trying to work on this, but it seems the Ruy gives Black plenty of options):

I can see some themes in the opening - the light bishop will be able to retreat to b3, potentially to c2 after c3, which works to build a strong pawn center. 

Granted, I didn't mention the 0-0 lines, which I guess I should for all those who like the main line.  But this being said - 5. d3 is the 2nd most popular move on the board!!!  And that being said, this position smells a bit of a reversed Philidor.  The key difference - the light bishop.  So the bishop retreats to b3, to be met by Na5, for instance.  I either sac the bishop on f7 for an attack, or allow Nxb3 axb3, which isn't terrible.  But please, for everyone who has a disdain for the Philidor, I would be interested in your evaluation of such a line as the Anderssen Variation of the Ruy Lopez.  I also say this because currently I am trying to learn 1. e4 systems, and I value your input.  Conzipe, Estragon, where are you guys?!?  

Fezzik, that analysis you gave is almost borderline useless.  Please, allow me to refrain from telling you how enlightened I am by your awesome knowledge of chess, oh mighty enlightened one...brilliant!  Eureka!  I get it all of a sudden.  

No, not really.  I asked the question for real discussion, not for you to make a chopping block out of it.  To me, the only huge difference is one move and a more active bishop - thanks to Captain Obvious for pointing this out, case solved.  Now we can put the chess computers to rest, chess is solved thanks to you Fezzik.  

My point was the pawn structure.  Conzipe mentioned Bc4, and then a retreat to d3 later, to overprotect e4.  I am discussing the d3-e4 pawn structure, or in another words, the d6-e5 pawn structure.  God forbid we choose any passive bishop openings, like the French or the Philidor...

If you are a Ruy player who does play the d3 lines, what is your take on the Philidor?  

Rose, I believe that even Kasparov advocated the d3 approach to the Ruy at one time, and in some ways, it bears resemblance to some of the Slow Italian lines.  The core difference is that the bishop is on c4 in one go, instead of b5-a4-b3.  Of course, you have the a6-b5 pawn structure "weakness" or "expansion", whichever you prefer.  

I wouldn't call d3 a second-rate move.  Not really sure that you were saying that anyway, but I believe it is a principled move, creating a stronghold in the center, strengthening e4, making way for the dark bishop, and working towards preparing a pawn duo in the center - albeit, a bit more slowly.  

A look at a mainline Ruy d3:

For instance, in this line, there are 37 games in the database - 43-35-22 for White, good stats.  The pawn structure bears a ton of resemblance to the Philidor.  This being said, Black's structure is nothing near a typical White structure in the mainline Philidor, so White still has more space.  

Rose, I already play offbeat openings, so I understand the principle of getting out of book for a fun game.  This was less about the Philidor, as a comparison.  There was an interesting article on chess.com earlier where Kramnik ask a fellow chess player to evaluate a position.  At first, he says, "White's position is horrible - terrible pawn structure, hole on d4..." - then it dawns on him that Kramnik set up a reversed Sveshnikov, where White had black's position, and likewise.  Kramnik told him not to judge a position by just what you hear, but judge the ideas in truth.  

 I was unable to find 13. Nd5 in the Chessbase database, but I don't doubt that it has been played. What is the ELO cut off for your statistics, though? (I personally don't consider anything below 2200 when I'm looking at percentages)
Now, I don't have access to an engine right now to confirm, but I am looking at 2 ideas in response to 13. Nd5. The first is a timely ...Qa5. Possibly 13... Qa5 even. 13... Nd4 has caught my interest as well (I think I might prefer it). Of course, both of those might miss the mark and there could be something else, but they seem reasonable to me? 
I would disagree with your natural moves argument. I don't think 6. Bf4 seems so natural when compared to the other bishop moves, 6. Bc4, or 6. Be2, and yet 6. Bf4 is the sharpest try. Whether it is OTB or in online blitz, few of my opponents play, or even know to play 6. Bf4. I face Bc4 far more often, but that just leads to a simplified position in which I don't think white gets very much. Very few people have tested me in the Philidor with the critical lines we are discussing.  
I have used the Philidor in every single game as black against e4 that I have played on this site, and my rating is generally 2000-2100. I have now switched to it in OTB play and I am within 50 points of expert at the moment, my most recent performance rating being around 2030. The opening seems to be working for me. I enjoy watching White play with the mentality that no matter what he plays, he must have an advantage, because it's the Philidor.
Also, it is a matter of time, right now, what time I put into chess I prefer to put into tactics, positional play, and endings (yawn). The critical lines in the Philidor Antoshin variation are relatively few and I am almost always far more prepared than my opponent.

Ajedrecito and Fezzik, I appreciate those responses.  I hate chess discussion in terms of "1. e4 c5!"  I prefer "Black chooses an aggressive defense, the Sicilian, which takes a share of the queenside, and in particular, he stakes a claim at d4".  It may sound silly, but hearing the ideas behind the moves means a lot to my learning.

I have often avoided the white side of the Ruy like a plague - there is so much theory, and all I really want is understanding - I want to be able to play moves that make sense in conjunction with each other, in a fluid sense.  The last times I have played the Ruy, I actually convert into a Spanish Four Knights after 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. Nc3, but 3...a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d3 does intrigue me.  I like building into positions, sometimes slowly.  For instance, the "passive, solid" nature of the Hungarian intrigues me (although, sometimes I have trouble finding a good plan for my pawns and pieces) - the simple ...Be7, which stymies the annoying Fried Liver.  I know, it is just me.  I just don't like getting into huge tactical skirmishes.  But to truly learn e4, there will have to be some of this learning. 

My question about d3 in the Ruy is for myself especially.  I also wonder a lot about the light bishop and its role - understanding where White is successful after defenses like the Norwegian ...Na5 (I believe it is the Norwegian?!?) - not just finding the most popular lines, but understanding why I am playing these lines.  I understand that the bishop goes to b3, where it helps protect the queenside.  Also, I believe it helps support a4, which the authors of my book say is beneficial to White against the a6-b5 pawn structure.  

I did recently buy a book on 1. e4 that is supposed to be comprehensive, but wouldn't you know it...the chapters on the Ruy Lopez, one of the most exhaustive sections of the book, doesn't cover one single d3 line for White.  I understand - the authors value the d2-d4 ideas, and I respect that.  But it doesn't help me understand d3.  

Enough said - extra move in hand and active bishop, not considering theory or lines of analysis, promise White something extra.  The Be7 in the Philidor must find a solid role - often in my games, White will play Bg5 and trade the knight for my bishop.  This is awesome for me - I have an extra piece to support my e5 pawn.  Here is one example of me playing the Philidor:

http://www.chess.com/games/view.html?id=9649411#

I also play another move that I think is a bit unconventional, yet not unexplored - ...c6 followed by ...Qc7.  It may not be the best according to theory, but it solidly defends e5 while beginning a queenside initiative.  

I understand the ...g6 lines in the Philidor do give you a better bishop, at the cost of a risky "Yugoslav" attack from White.  

But enough comparing the two - this topic really should be devoted to the Philidor, and I don't want to take it off on a tangent.  Thank you guys for your lucid explanation of these simple ideas - as I learn 1. e4, I am certain to be asking many "simple" questions, seeking to understand the ideas, rather than memorize them. 

Alekhine, one of the most dynamic players of all times, played the Philidor. If you understand the opening it is an underrated and psychological weapon. You can also transpose into Philidor positions from other openings. Anyone ever hear of the Hayward system? c6, Qc7, d6, Nd7, Nf6, e5, Be7, etc.

WestofHollywood, that setup looks like what I like.  I think the queen is good at c7, it looks natural, and there are some nice threats that Black creates...

Try it. When I play it I play an immediate 1...c6 followed by 2...Qc7.  It avoids some of the unpleasant lines of the Philidor and its fun to play offbeat stuff once in a while.

lol, great post! That pretty much nails it.

I agree it probably stops black from getting a Philidor position. But isn't 3.e5 a somewhat premature advance? Seems to me after 3...d6 followed 4...g6 (assuming white doesn't take the pawn) black is OK.

Agreed - I was thinking similar thoughts last night. Black's structure is not filled with any weaknesses, and White must prove his pawn advance is successful. I wouldn't think e5 was any more successful than something else, personally - although I could be wrong.  I wasn't thinking about ..g6 last night, although that looks okay.  I was thinking more along the lines of ...e6 when I went to bed last night, just a quick look in my head at that idea.  

It leads to positions just like the open Sicilian but without a central pawn majority and with less opportunity for queenside counterplay since you have no open c file or a possible minority attack there.

The c pawn can actually aid in the Queenside counterplay, as after a6, b5, c5 (not possible in the Sicilian) black can get a dynamic position.

To contribute to the USCF vs chess.com rating afair, I'd just like to mention that i am rated 1258 USCF and 1237 here in 10 min blitz (I don't play standard). Obviously i play better in real life events since i have more time, but the 10 min blitz does help train me to see tactics faster. Point is that i have a couple of friends here on chess.com that i know in real life, and the ratings contrast by about 75-100 points. I'd say it's about 80% accurate.