I am new here and have played almost 10 games as white. They have all opened with 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6?. This d6? move is very strange looking. It must be a blunder. Why do so many people play this silly move?

The philidor defense is no blunder. It's a solid, if somewhat boring and passive, defense for black.

Win as white, draw as black...

then again I'm no gm, and I'm not facing gm's so I prefer
win as white, win as black...

If people don't know what they're doing you can always have a beautiful Legall's Mate (or variant of)...

well, maybe not a blunder, but it definitely is not good. white wins 46% of the games against black's 25.5% according to chessgames.com opening explorer.

Wouldn't recommend the Philidor for beginners, well, most beginners I've played seem to play themselves into trouble as white looks pretty menacing to them after 3.Bc4. From there black can expect to face many threats and will lose quickly if they're not careful. I personally like to face it as white, but then again, I don't think I've ever seen a 1600+ player play it against me. Is it a popular opening at higher levels do people know?

Originally posted by likeforest
I am new here and have played almost 10 games as white. They have all opened with 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6?. This d6? move is very strange looking. It must be a blunder. Why do so many people play this silly move?

the philder defence if thats how you spell it was common in the 19 cetury because no one wanted to be black against the ruy lopez or the goico piano or evens gambit. sorry about the spelling
it is countered by e4 e5 Nf3 d6? d4! and yes black can loose early



😀🙄

There is nothing wrong with the Philidor as black, that is if you know what you are doing!

It is much easier to learn and keep up with its theory than the Spanish, and there are other benefits, for example: you will not have to worry about uncommon but dangerous surprise lines like 4.Ng5!? in the Two Knights or suffer the symmetrical boredom of the Four Knights.

I prefer the dynamic c-pawn in the philidor, especially the set ups with exd4 and Be7 where black can choose between a solid c6 or a tough c5! To sum up, the Phil is as solid as the Petroff but easier to learn, less charted and less drawish! 🙂

Originally posted by jonzzzz
the philder defence if thats how you spell it was common in the 19 cetury because no one wanted to be black against the ruy lopez or the goico piano or evens gambit. sorry about the spelling
it is countered by e4 e5 Nf3 d6? d4! and yes black can loose early



😀🙄

Originally posted by cmsMaster
Please stop offering advice when you don't know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by TheGambit
Wouldn't recommend the Philidor for beginners, well, most beginners

Originally posted by Gambiteer
There is nothing wrong with the Philidor as black, that is if you know what you are doing!

It is much easier to learn and keep up with its theory than the Spanish, and there are other benefits, for example: you will not have to worry about uncommon but dangerous surprise lines like 4.Ng5!? in the Two Knights or suffer the symmetrical boredom of the Fou ...[text shortened]... m up, the Phil is as solid as the Petroff but easier to learn, less charted and less drawish! 🙂

🙂😀😉😛😵🙄

Originally posted by jonzzzz
I agree the phidor does avoid the boring four knights but the pettroff does to. petroff wich I play sometimes but you can transpose into the phildor from the petroff with e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 d6 d4 Nbd7 but at least it avoids the Ruy and queens gambit entierly and which is my goal as black.😀