Petrovs Defense: Classical Attack
Petrov's Defense: Classical Attack
Definition
The Classical Attack of the Petrov (or Russian) Defense arises after the moves 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Nc3 (or, more commonly in modern praxis, 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. O-O). By retreating the knight from e5 back to f3 on move four, White lures Black’s knight to e4, then challenges it with central pawn thrusts and swift development.
How It Is Used in Chess
- Move-order themes. White’s early 3. Nxe5 accepts the invitation to a material-balanced but unbalanced-piece configuration. The sequence 4. Nf3 Nxe4 returns the pawn but leaves both knights in the center, inviting tactical complications.
- Central tension. After 5. Nc3 or 5. d4, White piles pressure on the e4-knight and d5-square, aiming to gain space with d2-d4 or c2-c4 and to exploit latent pins along the e-file.
- Black’s counterplay. Black relies on solid piece placement— ...d5, ...Nc6, ...Be7, ...O-O—and typically seeks equality rather than an outright initiative, although timely thrusts like ...c5 or ...f5 can seize the moment.
- Typical middlegames. The structure often resembles a mirrored Queen’s Gambit with both d-pawns advanced, or an Exchange French with an extra pair of knights. Open lines, especially the e-file, give both sides chances for tactical blows.
Strategic & Historical Significance
First championed by Wilhelm Steinitz in the late 19th century, the Classical Attack was one of the original attempts to demonstrate a concrete path to an edge against the ultra-solid Petrov. Its strategic idea—win time by attacking the knight, then occupy the center—set a template for many later anti-Petrov systems.
Through the mid-20th century the line fell out of favor because Black found a number of accurate drawing resources. With engines uncovering fresh tactical nuances, however, it experienced a renaissance in elite play (e.g., Anand, Kramnik, and Karjakin) as a practical, surprise weapon.
Illustrative Example
Steinitz – Chigorin, Havana 1889 (annotated sequence)
Steinitz demonstrated that after 10. Nc3 Nf6 White could maintain a healthy space advantage and freer pieces, ultimately grinding out a win in the ensuing major-piece endgame.
Modern Grandmaster Reference
Anand – Adams, Dortmund 1996:
- e4 e5
- Nf3 Nf6
- Nxe5 d6
- Nf3 Nxe4
- d4 d5
- Bd3 Nc6
- O-O Be7
- c4 Nb4 (sharp try)
- Be2 O-O
Adams defended resourcefully, but Anand’s central bind translated into a kingside attack—proof that the Classical Attack is more than a drawing line in modern hands.
Interesting Facts & Anecdotes
- The “Mirror Paradox.” The early moves create a near-symmetrical position, yet White’s extra tempi (first move plus the attack on e4) give subtle dynamic chances—illustrating Steinitz’s dictum that “the side with the move has the attack.”
- José Capablanca once remarked that the Classical Attack “should not concern the practical master; the equality suits Black.” His countryman Leinier Domínguez later revived it—proving even world champions can underestimate openings.
- In many engine databases the move 5. Nc3 scores higher than the more “classical” 5. d4, yet human grandmasters prefer the latter for its cleaner strategic contours.
- The line occasionally transposes to the Four Knights Game if both players develop knights to c3/c6 before committing their bishops.
When to Choose the Classical Attack
Select this variation if you:
- Enjoy open central play with early tactical skirmishes.
- Are comfortable converting small space advantages into endgame pressure.
- Wish to sidestep voluminous Petrov theory such as the Cochrane or the sharp 3. d4 lines.
Conversely, if you prefer ultra-sharp sacrifices like 4. Nxf7!? (the Cochrane Gambit), the Classical Attack might feel too positional.