Philidor Defence
chess opening, consisting of the moves 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6
The Philidor Defence (or Philidor's Defence) is a chess opening characterised by the moves:
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 d6
The solid move 2...d6 defends Black's pawn on e5. White's usual response is to immediately challenge Black in the centre with 3.d4. Black's most common reply is 3...exd4; 3...Nf6 and 3...Nd7 are the main alternatives. It is also frequently reached via other move orders, such as 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5, where 4.Nf3 transposes. This order encourages White to play Nc3 early, but allows White to exchange queens early via 4.dxe5. 3...Nd7 and only then 4...e5 is another possibility avoiding the endgame but allowing White to avoid transposing in other ways.
The Philidor is named after the famous 18th-century player François-André Danican Philidor, who advocated it as an alternative to the common 2...Nc6. His original idea was to challenge White's centre by the pawn thrust ...f7–f5.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Philidor Defence” as chess opening, consisting of the moves 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as chess opening, consisting of the moves 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 30, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q466964. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Philidor Defence”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Philidor Defence primary sources, Philidor Defence archive and Philidor research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Philidor Defence”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Philidor Defence” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.