Talk:Petrov's Defence

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Petroff

[edit]

Books on this chess opening all seem to spell it 'Petroff'. Why is this page not following the academic convention? Can someone change the page spelling to Petroff please? Imnikrist (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Petrov" is the usual spelling of this common Russian name. MCO uses the "Petrov" spelling even if they're in a minority. "Petroff" is old fashioned, it reflects pronunciation but Russian names with this ending are usually transliterated as "-ov" rather than "-off" these days. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cochrane Gambit

[edit]

It would be interesting to see an analysis of the Cochrane Gambit with a good refutation or defense leading to equality.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffgruff (talk • contribs) Nov 13, 2006

The article contains no justification of the ?! assessment. NCO assesses the gambit as equal, and the line scores fine for white in practice. If there is a refutation (which I think less likely) it would require many, many lines with black finding an endgame advantage in each. In simple terms the question is whether 2 pawns and an exposed K on f7 is worth a bishop. Looks a fair exchange to me. I will remove the ?! unless someone can give a good reason for it. Elroch (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Float left or float right?

[edit]

For the main diagram in the openings articles do we want to float left or float right?

Float right fits in better with the way that a normal article would be formatted -- text to the left and the illustrative image to the right. But I think that chess opening articles are different and look a bit better with the diagram on the left.

What do others think about this?

(If we float right, the margin should be a margin-left rather than a margin-right to leave some space between the diagram and the text. That is, either style="float: right; margin-left: 1em" or style="float: left; margin-right: 1em;".)

The link to "Petrov's Three Knights Game" takes to the same page. Isn't it supposed to be a separate article?

Lasker-Pillsbury

[edit]

"Pillsbury's game in 1896 against Emmanuel Lasker testifies to this."

I think the game was in 1895, not 1896. The database at www.chessgames.com only has two Petrov Defense games between Lasker and Pillsbury, and both were in 1895. This game Ref: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1109091 (Lasker-Pillsbury) is probably the one referred to in the text; the opening moves are: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5. --B.d.mills 02:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boden-Kieseritsky Gambit

[edit]

This could probably have its own page, which I could probably take on. What is the standard for which openings/variations get their own page? Is there one? --Rhododendrite 03:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Boden-Kieseritzky_Gambit was directed to this Petrov's page, either expand the Petrov Page or expand wikibooks chess theory Petrov's Defense ChessCreator 15:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no standard, but in general any opening that gets a separate chapter in the standard surveys like MCO and NCO gets its own article. We also have articles for all of White's first opening moves, even though many of them are classified as irregular openings and barely treated in the standard references, since the irregular openings have little in common except that they are uncommon. Variations should be described in the parent opening article. If the section becomes too long in the parent article, WP:SUMMARY summary style is appropriate. I think B-K could definitely support a separate article, but I recommend expanding the section here first. When it gets out of proportion to the discussion of the rest of the Petrov, split out the more detailed part of the section to a new article. Hope this helps. Quale 17:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion, expand it in the Two Knights Defence, Nc3 section where it is already given. ChessCreator (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bc4

[edit]

A line often encountered at club level is 3. Bc4 Nxe4 4. Nxe5, but this doesn't seem to be mentioned on the page. It seems to be less bad for White than 3. Nxe5 Nxe4 is for Black, but it's very unclear and I'd like to see some analysis. 91.105.5.71 18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3.Bc4 Nxe4 4. Nxe5? d5 5. d3 Nf6 =+ or 5. Nxf7 Qe7 -+ 5. Bb3 Qg5 =+ ChessCreator 20:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

[edit]

Redirects to this article are needed from Petrov defence, Petrov's defence and possibly other locations. With so many chess opening articles, it's often confusing to remember exactly what format the title of a particular one is in. 91.107.153.28 (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that necessary? There is already Petrov Defence, Petrov's Defence, Petroff Defence, Petroff's Defence, Petroff's Defense, Petroff Defense, Petrov Defense, Petrov's defense and also Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit and possibly others. ChessCreator (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Nxe4 Qe7

[edit]

what about this line?

I'm actually playing a game in which that happened. I played 4.d4 and he played d6. Now I can't decide between Nc4, Nd3 and Nf3, and I'm trying to figure out why this line isn't in any books or the net.

Hi, 3. Nxe4 is not possible, the Knight just went 2. Nf3.
I'm guessing you mean 3. Nxe5 followed by Qe7. The line is not theory(at least I can't find it in theory anywhere) and it's rarely played, but follow this. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 Qe7 4. d4 d6 (4...Nc6 5. Nxc6 Qe4+ 6. Be2 Qxc6 7. O-O White with advantage for White) 5. Nf3 Qxe4 (5...Nxe4 problem with this Knight for Black is the Black bishop is blocked in by the Queen and so Kingside castling is slow. 6. Be2 Bf5 7. O-O with Re1 better for white.) 6. Be3 Be7 7. Bd3 (or Nc3) and white is with advantage being several tempo's up. SunCreator (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3.Nxe5 d6

[edit]

Anand, V. (2790) vs. Kramnik, V. (2788) Corus A | Wijk aan Zee NED | Round 12| 30 Jan 2010 | ECO: C42 | 1-0

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.O-O Be7 8.c4 Nb4 9.Be2 O-O 10.Nc3 Bf5 11.a3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Nc6 13.Re1 Re8 14.cxd5 Qxd5 15.Bf4 Rac8 Elev8torguy (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move Boden-Kieseritzky to Two Knights Defence article?

[edit]

I'm not sure which move order is the most common but it seems to me to belong more with the Two Knights Defence than the Petroff. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few variations of the BKG include Nc6, and it's never there when the gambit is offered. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stafford Gambit

[edit]

It's unsound but there's been a bit of a craze for it in the last couple of years especially in online blitz games because there are so many traps. We can probably blame IM Eric Rosen and his youtube channel for this. We'll need to take it seriously and give some properly sourced analysis. How about GM Avetik Grigoryan? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at that later. Also Urusov needs more analysis. It's got some super cute Romantic lines. Dayshade (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram

[edit]

@Ihardlythinkso: I like the diagram where I changed it to cause it avoids the awkward little bit of white space below the line of the second level header and reduces the overflow into the next section. I think it outweighs the valid criticism that it should be at the section as it still appears adjacent. Any thoughts? Dayshade (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re "overflow into the next section", dont' see anything meeting that description. Re placing diag away from its relevant sec, that's not only non-standard but counterintuitive. In addition, it's not foward looking: if sec Italian Variation: 3.Bc4 is significantly expanded in future, and someone links directly to subsec Boden–Kieseritzky Gambit: 3...Nxe4 4.Nc3, they may entirely miss the diag. --IHTS (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that regardless mobile would be an issue for putting it in a different location, so yeah, maybe I'll have to go remove comparable stuff on other articles. It is nice to not have that awkwardly placed white space though. This is on desktop. There's a gap between the underline of the second level header and the top of the diagram that looks weird. Dayshade (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You already described that. Yes, there's function aspect here. Re "weird", I'm into article presentation esthetics perhaps way more than any other WP:CHESS editor, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest, and I'm super picky. Being in the subsec "where it belongs" is also esthetics factor, avoiding any cognitive dissonance. After you clock thousands of chess article edits, you might concur. --IHTS (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the adjacency to the underline just feels super nice to me though. But the mobile display issue outweighs it. But I think I wanna try adding more side-by-side diagrams, like at Kieseritzky Gambit, what do you think? It'd be cool to get more diagrams a bit further into the game of cute Romantic positions. Dayshade (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No real opinion, my "mode" as editor is responding to "what's there" versus creative addition/modification (unless it's an article that I created). Good luck. --IHTS (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vibe

[edit]

@MaxBrowne2: I actually do think it read a lot better in my rewrite, cause the style of it clashed with the normal encyclopedic tone I felt and it lacked normal punctuation. Also any other feedback? I will add some citations from PDFs soon. Dayshade (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The repetitive "White usually plays", "Black usually plays" doesn't read very well for me at all, it just screams "I'm using a database". Nor does the repetitive "as" read very well. There is nothing unencyclopedic about the way it was written originally. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well, I guess I'll do another take that keeps it without the as and usually but still fixes the punctuation and vibe. Maybe "Common moves include" instead of "usually" is better? Dayshade (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the "vibe"? What "problem" are you trying to "fix"? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like just the weird punctuation and stuff. Idk. Doesn't it stick out as unusual formatting compared to other articles? Dayshade (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is that your database-dumping, "the most common moves are", "White usually", "Black usually", "commonly continues" etc makes for incredibly tedious reading, and you seem determined to push your tedious database-dumping style on every single opening article. I don't care if it is "common" or not, I want to know if it's any good, or more specifically how it is assessed by reliable sources. Some of the "common" moves in the databases are serious errors or at least clearly inferior to another less "common" move. If you can't find an assessment by a reliable source then it's not even worth including. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have the pinski PDF so I'll add assessments from that soon. Although I think a common move not in a book is still worth a mention but won't have an assessment. Also I'm using a master's games database, not the lichess one for casual play. Although sometimes I do feel like I'd like to have a bit more analysis about suboptimal move common in casual play. E.g. for the MacLeod Defense to KG, you see it all the time online even though 4.d4 lets White equalize. Dayshade (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've found the source of some of these weird variation names

[edit]

David Hooper's book from 1967 has "Modern Attack" for 3.d4, "Classical Attack" for 3.Nxe5, "Cozio Attack" for 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qe2, "Nimzowitsch Attack" for 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3, "Kaufmann Attack" for 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.c4, "French Attack" for 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d3 and "Paulsen Attack" for 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nc4. As far as I know none of these terms ever really caught on or became standard. See, old sources are still relevant to wikipedia, they chronicle the evolution of opening theory, and explain some of the names of lines. Per WP:NOTHOW, we are not an instructional manual. We are not trying to write opening theory or give advice to readers. We are merely documenting what has been written. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good find. I like to include names when possible, even if not super widely used, because they're extremely convenient for referring to lines for learners and transpositions where just using the literal move name gets confusing. E.g. "I like to play the Knight Attack against the Two Knights" is clearer to less experienced players than "I like to play 4.Ng5 against the Two Knights". As for NOTHOW, I'm not adding advice (please go ahead and remove if I've slipped up, and I know I need to go back and check my old work, especially KGA); describing the common lines that exist is permissible by WP:PRIMARY. Dayshade (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I like to play 4.Ng5 against the Two Knights" is far clearer, since I had never even heard the term "Knight's Attack" until a couple of weeks ago. Most opening books don't fixate on what a line is called, they just give the moves and assessments. Unless a name is well established and used by multiple non-internet sources (like "Najdorf Variation") we shouldn't use it. Same with any technical term about any subject. If one book out of the thousands written on golf describes a particular style of putting as "the Arnold Palmer Technique", then we might say 'Golfing writer John Smith calls this "the Arnold Palmer Technique"', but we probably wouldn't bother because that would give undue prominence to one author. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Knight Attack is pretty intuitive though, since 4.Ng5 is an attack on f7 with the knight. I still think there's something to be said about the names being useful for teaching and noting transpositions. E.g. Gotham didn't start calling 4.Ng5 the Fried Liver for no reason; he must have thought it was awkward to say 4.Ng5 over and over which I'm sympathetic to. Knight Attack seems to be an acceptable descriptive name, kind of like "Open Variation" and "Closed Variation". Dayshade (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything would work so much nicer with not having a separate name for 4.Ng5 if 4.d3 hadn't supplanted it as a main line. Ugh lol Dayshade (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about your personal preferences, it's about what the reliable sources use on a consistent basis. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
:'( Having a nice little two word name on the header would be so nice and consistent looking though :'( Dayshade (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything would also work so much nicer if I weren't so obsessed with opening names and so on. I just love cute Romantic gambit lines too much. Dayshade (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, sources, sources. And I don't mean chess dot fucking com. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Super tempted to buy that expensive chessbase opening thing. Dayshade (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]