Philidor Defense

Originally posted by nimzo5
I wouldn't play the Philidor in CC unless you have a novelty up your sleeve.

I agree.

From White's perspective, I just wondered if there was a readily apparent way for White to slam the Philidor. Apparently not.

In elementary school, I remember as Black doing 2 . . d6 to protect my e5 pawn. An arguably simplistic move intuitive to the typical chess-playing 9 year old, but a move that doesn't develop a piece and also blocks in the king bishop.

Now I find out that 2 . . . d6 provides for a solid start for Black in the Philidor Defense!?

Originally posted by greenpawn34
The English GM Aaron Summerscale has dropped a load of books on Ebay
most starting out 99p. More than 40 (!) on the Sicilian.

He is also selling 'WINNING WITH THE PHILDOR' by Tony Kosten at 99p. and
"THE DYNAMIC PHILIDOR COUNTER-GAMBIT" by West at 99p both £3.25 postage.

Also there is Estrin'S 'TWO KNIGHTS DEFENCE' (99p) which is a book a tactics ...[text shortened]... tacked and Black has mate in one.} 20. Rxb7+ hxg5 21. Nc6+ Ke8 22. Re7 {Checkmate.}[/pgn]

Wow. It is only recently that I remembered how dynamic the Two Knights Defense, in contrast to the "unambitious" Four Knights Game, for example.

Originally posted by torten
I don't think you can get a big advantage against the philidor.Played correctly it's a sound opening choice.
It's unpopular and has a (undeserved) bad reputation but there really isn't much wrong with it,though I find it hard to play myself.

http://blueeyedrook.blogspot.com/2006/09/chess-loveable-loser-philidor-defense.html

I came across these comments on a blog (link above) from 2006:

The opening [Philidor] is not for everyone – indeed the the opening just barely straddles the line of respectability. You can play it at a chess tournament and not be laughed at, but I guarantee you your opponent will almost always be thinking to himself “Thank God, it looks like I am playing an idiot.” It’s amazing to me how many respectable chess authors and books do not even discuss the opening . . . . Worse yet, the commentators who do discuss it describe it as best an inferior alternative to 2… Nc6.

“By consensus, it seems that Philidor . . . [is] useful but that [2… Nc6] is preferable.” Charles Abrahams, The Pan Book of Chess (1983).

“The early twentieth-century greats Nimzovich, Tartakower, Alekhine and Marco used it occasionally, but the opening has been out of style since then.” Nick de Firmian, Modern Chess Openings (14th ed.) (1999).

“The Philidor Defense has a terrible reputation . . . . The only viable line is the one Larsen promoted [3. d4 exd4. 4. Nxd4 g6]. . . .” Eric Schiller, Standard Chess Openings (2000).

“[Regarding the Philidor Defense and the usual 3. d4] black has a sorry choice between giving up pawn control of the center [3… exd4], and maintaining Pawn control of the center [3… Nd7] – being burdened in either event with a congested, unpromising position.” Fred Reinfeld, The Complete Chess Player (1987).


If scholastic criticism wasn't bad enough, the poor Philidor has to deal with its horrendous track record. The chart below summarizes the Philidor under four different chess game databases. . . . Not only does white win a lot, but black seldom wins. But that is the good news . . . the charts above represent top-level games (involving top players). When one looks at the performance at the club/amateur level (the level 95% of us -- myself included -- play at), the defense looks downright pathetic.

With such a “rosy” endorsement from chess literature and a dubious looking track record, the obvious question begs itself: why on earth play it? My answer to this is the same as Tony Kosten’s, the opening’s major, present-day advocate: being able to immediately steer the course of the game. As Kosten states: “White almost invariably answers 3. d4 (whereas if you play the normal 2… Nc6 you have to reckon with the ‘Spanish Torture’ – 3. Bb5 – but also with the sharp Max Lange Attack, or the Scotch Gambit, or the positional Bishop’s Opening, in fact a whole host of different possibilities each requiring the memorization of a precise defense) and it is Black who chooses the battleground.” Tony Kosten, Winning With the Philidor (2001).

He’s right – sort of. Players (amateurs anyway) do indeed play moves other than 3. d4, but his point is sound: there are only a handful of variations of moves white has after 2… d6. I used to play the Petroff Defense (2… Nf6) (a much more respected defense for black) only to be frustrated by how many lines ensued after 3. Nxe4 or 3. d4 or 3. Nc3 (Three knights game). Whole books have been written on each. Here is the Philidor’s true beauty. After 2… d6, you will see two (and I mean almost always just these two) moves. 3. d4 or 3. Bc4. In 280 games, one of these moves has been played 77.4% of the time.

Ironically, in high-level chess even 3. Bc4 becomes a rarity (as Kosten suggests above) – despite its very common play in the amateur world. Very few of the books I have read on the opening ever seriously look at 3. Bc4 and instead 3. d4 is seen as the universally accepted “only legitimate reply” – the only one worthy of any real significant analysis. I personally find this aspect of chess publishing frustrating. You can find books (or sections of chess books) detailing the Sicilian Opening to the 12th or 14th move. In fairness, the Sicilian is one of the most popular and highly-rated openings in the world. But I can find only a handful (and I mean one or two) books that cover the Philidor after 3. Bc4. Why is that? Simple. Because grandmasters write chessbooks and they are smart enough to know never to play 3. Bc4 in the Philidor line. Fair enough, but what I never understood is that while chessmasters (albeit the authors) make up .001% of the chess playing population, amateurs (like you and me!) buy probably 95% of the chess books out there . . .

Originally posted by wargamer66
I've gone back to 1.e4 in the last few months and have been playing d4 and retaking with Qxd4.... I'll be dropping that line very soon because I'm not getting much of an opening advantage after Nc6, Bb5 followed by Bxc6 when the bishop gets kicked inevitably.

The Nc6 is a tempo gain for black.

Originally posted by moon1969
The Nc6 is a tempo gain for black.

I'm not so sure, as after Bb5 ...Bd7 BxNc6...BxBc6, it's white's move. 😕 🙂 I'd still love to find the Lasker game Keene or Levi mentioned. I even asked Keene, but got no reply. 😞

Originally posted by moon1969
Interesting comment. You imply a good point that 3 . . . exd4 may not be the Black move, and instead Black may do 3 . . . Nf6. I do need to be more prepared as White for the Black 3 . . . Nf6 you mention. As an aside, you indicate White 4.exd4 (position below) as the main line in reply to Black 3 . . . Nf6.

[fen]rnbqkb1r/ppp2ppp/3p1n2/4P3/4P3/5N2/PPP2 ...[text shortened]... or white, and the column 4 with 3 . . . exd4 4.Nxd4 "slightly favor[s] Black."

4.Nc3 is logical,but I don't think White can claim an advantage after 4...exd4. As for 3...Nbd7,the Hanham Variation,I don't think much of the move. Black already has a position that is a little cramped,no need to cramp it furhter.