Talk:Petrov's Defence

Chess Mid‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: Sports & games Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the sports and games in Russia task force.

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]

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]