Some years ago in a parenthetical note in a book on Philidor's
defence, I ran across the line 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 Qf6!?. A
couple of Lombardy's games were quoted. Black's idea consists of
strong-pointing e5, erecting a prickly wall of pawns on c6, d6, and h6
(preventing attacks on the Queen by Bg5 and Nd5) and keeping all the
entry points on the d-file covered to rule out invasions on the
d-file. Black then tries to exploit the f4 square for use by a
knight, possible followed by a pawn storm on the kingside.

I began trying this in speed chess and had considerable success with
the line. Encouraged, I tried it in tournament chess and was also
successful. I found that White almost always way to a clear
advantage, let alone an outright bust. I picked up a major opening
reference book (BCO or MCO- can't recall) some years later and
discover that 3. ...Qf6 was listed as the main line against 3. Bc4.

The only other time I've seen this line was on the Ohio chess scene,
when about 10 years ago or so certain players were analyzing and
playing 1. e4 e5 2. Qf3!? with an eye towards a similar setup in
reverse. Incidentally, I experimented with 1. e4 c5 2. Qf3, but that
proved to be less successful.

Does anyone know the origin of this setup? I was told it was
originally a Tartakower idea (which sounds plausible) but I've never
found any of his games or analysis which featured this line.

Thanks,
D. Foley

Subject: .Philidor Defence ...Qf6 line against 3. Bc4

On 18 July 2003 (dan foley) wrote in
Message-id:

Some years ago in a parenthetical note in a book on Philidor's
defence, I ran across the line 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 Qf6!?. A
couple of Lombardy's games were quoted.

-snip-

Does anyone know the origin of this setup? I was told it was
originally a Tartakower idea (which sounds plausible) but I've never
found any of his games or analysis which featured this line.

Thanks,
D. Foley


I am not aware of any Tartakower games employing this move. In fact, I don't
think Tartakower ever played the Philidor's Defense. In the book which cited
Lombardy's games, was there mention of the game Wotulo-Lombardy from 1973?

George Mirijanian

(Miriling) wrote in message ...
Subject: .Philidor Defence ...Qf6 line against 3. Bc4

On 18 July 2003 (dan foley) wrote in
Message-id:

Some years ago in a parenthetical note in a book on Philidor's
defence, I ran across the line 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 Qf6!?. A
couple of Lombardy's games were quoted.

-snip-

Does anyone know the origin of this setup? I was told it was
originally a Tartakower idea (which sounds plausible) but I've never
found any of his games or analysis which featured this line.

Thanks,
D. Foley


I am not aware of any Tartakower games employing this move. In fact, I don't
think Tartakower ever played the Philidor's Defense. In the book which cited
Lombardy's games, was there mention of the game Wotulo-Lombardy from 1973?

George Mirijanian




Tartakower did play the Philidor intermittently - in fact I remember
one famous game (Lowcki-Tartakower, Jurata 1937) in which he essayed
3. ....Be6. Cited in the notes to the same game are O. Bernstein -
tarta. Paris 1937 and Castaldi-Tarta. Stockholm 1937.

The Wotulo-Lombardy game was cited in Harding's book on Philidor's
defence..

"Tony T. Warnock" wrote in message ...
The idea has been used in the exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez and
the Classical variation of the Ruy since the 1800s.

I have also seen a similar setup in a game between Mieses and Fritz,
played early in the last century, that arose from a Vienna Game. I
was more concerned with the origins of this specific line of the
Philidor - i.e. did Lombardy invent it, or had it arisen earlier?

If anybody has chessbase, or the Philidor def. database, could you
help? What are the earliest known games with 3. ...Qf6?