Book recomendation

[Dewi Jones]

Can anyone recommend a good beginners book, or point me in the direction of any particularly useful online stuff on the petrov defence? I'd like to learn something about it from a black perspective.

I like the "starting out" books, but there doesn't appear to be one on the petrov.

[Jon Mahony]

I had a look at the Petrov for a while using a DVD, but didn't go much on it. I think the reason there are no beginners books on it is because it's an extremely complicated opening - you have to know exactly what you are doing as black, be skilled at defence and happy to just sit there for 15 or 20 moves with no prospect of coming out with anything more than a draw at the end of it.

Another downside is, I found the vast majority of players below 140 would be frightened of getting into Petrov theory, just go 3.Nc3 and be happy to just go into a 3 or 4 Knights game - not the most dynamic try for white but a solid game, where they still have the advantage of the white pieces and all your opening prep is out the window.

Personally you wouldn't catch me going e4, e5 in a million years these days, practically everything white pulls out is dangerous if you aren't the most booked up player in the world

[Neil Graham]

"The Petroff" by Janjgava is currently on special offer at £5 from Chess and Bridge. Whilst it's not a book for beginners it gives you all the theory you will need to know to take up the Petroff and for that price you can't really go wrong.

[Roger de Coverly]

Another downside is, I found the vast majority of players below 140 would be frightened of getting into Petrov theory, just go 3.Nc3 and be happy to just go into a 3 or 4 Knights game - not the most dynamic try for white but a solid game, where they still have the advantage of the white pieces and all your opening prep is out the window.

Another alternative is a transposition to the Exchange French which goes

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d3 Nf6 6. d4 d5 7. c4

As always, despite being the same position, Petroff theory disagrees with Exchange French theory.

A satirist once suggested book titles which were realistic but bad for marketing. Drawing with the Petrov was I suspect amongst them, alongside White to play and draw with the Exchange French.

If you play 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6, there's a lot of study material available from the top players should the game continue 4. O-O Nxe4. In practice, you are going to see an awful lot of 4. Nc3 , 4. d3 and 4. Qe2 .

[JustinHorton]

Personally I reckon there'd be an awful lot of public interest in books that gave drawing lines for White.

[Jon Mahony]

Another alternative is a transposition to the Exchange French which goes

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d3 Nf6 6. d4 d5 7. c4

As always, despite being the same position, Petroff theory disagrees with Exchange French theory.

Yeah I’ve noticed that goes on a lot - you usually find, slotted in at the back of most Blackmar-Diemer gambit books that there is a possibility the game can go into a French with 1.d4, d5 2.e4 e6 and rather than been sensible and saying the game has transposed, it’s a tough old world, buy a French for white book. They give a few pages of analysis to the awful gambit try 1.d4, d5 2.e4, e6 3.Be3 (Alapin-Diemer? - Simon Williams just calls it the W@nker’s gambit )

The excuse used is that white is a wild B-D player and will want to gambit no matter what, and so this opening is much more in the players “style” never mind that it gets white in a terrible mess with not too much effort from black.

The opening seemed popular with postal players a few years ago, and I had fun torturing a lot of opponents, by second class post over a period of months