Quote:


Anand does the same thing with 3.Nc3 so I would say its a matter of style and temperment. Each player must decide for themselves which option works best for them.

Topper    

Thank you verymuch dom,i really appretiate your suggestion

Quote:


If it is this post you are talking about, my previous post would be a mistake. I realised it late. I'm sorry.

why nobody is replying?  ???

Yes,but if you look at the wider prespective,the subvariatios also come under the main variations viz Nd2 and Nc3 so i think there is no harm in discussing them, and when i studied Nc3 deeply

@armtwister,

Please don’t mistake me for saying so. But, I suggest you search the Steinitz threads in French Defense section. You might consider taking your discussion from there or if it warrants you might consider opening a new thread. This threat is about discussing the pros and cons of choosing 3.Nc3 or 3.Nd2 in general terms and it would be best to keep it that way.

Specific lines could be discussed in another place. Again, I’m sorry if it hurts. Nothing personal.

"As for the h4/Qg4 debate, that is also very difficult."

My 2 SRD thought: the opposite of aggressive is defensive and the opposite of passive is active. Active and aggressive are not the same.
I do not understand, why 7.Qg4 should be the more aggressive move. Usually White ends defending an extra pawn, while Black has the initiative.
After 7.h4 though, White has three ideas: advancing with h4-h5-h6; still go for Black's kingside with Qg4; sac a pawn on d4 to open the position and activate the pair of bishops. This all sounds very aggressive to me.

Willempie, 

I cringe when I see a scale listing aggressiveness on one end and "positional" on the other.  Haven't we learned yet that in order to be a "positional" chess player, one must be aggressive?  The opposite of aggressive is passive, which is bad.   

The opposite of positional is... what, anti-positional? computeresque?  Ok, I can accept a scale going from positional to Fritz.  I put myself firmly in the positional camp in that scale.

Great players who have considered themselves to be positional players tended to think more in terms of patterns (strategies) than just tactics.  However, these great players, such as Petrosian were also fully willing to attack and use tactics whenever possible.   

Mikhail Tal explained what he thought was the difference in styles when he analyzed a game he had played against Botvinnik.  Tal went through line after line while Botvinnik just kept pointing out ideas.  Tal realised after he had exhausted all his lines that Botvinnik was right.   

His conclusion was that both styles of analysis ended up in the right place, and both have strengths and weaknesses.  But he implied that he wished he had Botvinnik's positional sense.

All is relative
If you'd make a scale from agressive to positional it would look like this: Qg4 h4 Nf3 a4. So yes it is an attacking move, but more restrained than Qg4 (about any variation in the french is more restrained btw). So I think that h4 may suit you better as with Qg4 you must really like knife-edge play, when black goes for Qc7. 

Iirc there is a thread about h4 from less than 2 months ago, so it may pay off to check there as well.

Quote:


7.h4 is a positional line. Based on original poster's idea of attack 7.Qg5 would be a better choice.

As willempie says it is better to start with 4.e5 so as to reduce on the range of repertoire and after some time, branching off to 4.Bg5 makes sense.

That leaves Rubenstien and Fort Knox to take care of, though.

Thanks guys for you replys,so Nc3 it is i suppose..i want to ask if 4.e5 or 4.Bg5 is best against classical and if 7.Qg4 or  7.h4 is best against winawer, and if white can play h4 against all subvariations in the winawer(6..Nc6,6.Qc7,6.Qa6 etc)

Thanks

Original poster’s question is impossible to answer. Beauty of French, imho, lies in the fact that black can choose the pace of his game. After both 3.Nc3 and 3.Nd2 it black’s choice that is going to decide the whether the game is going to be tactical or strategic and tactical struggle or slow positional grind. We can say that to even KID but I think, it is much more pronounced in French.

im sure by now that every one knows i prefer Nc3 going for the better game and hoping for the A-C attack. 

Sharp as a Katana but the tactics can be as blunt as club.

I don't agree, that this reputation is undeserved. Drawing rates after 3...c5; 3...a6; and even 3...Be7 are very high.

Thanks for your replys , but i wonder why some of the attacking GM's play the Tarrasch,like for example Tal,Alekhine,Kasparov,Magnus Carlson,Igor Nthaf,Arkaidy Naidish,Sergi Tiviakov etc..  ???

Since you are an attacking player, then nc3 is DEFINITELY the  move for you. Ive said it before in other french discussions & I'll say it again here.....Nc3 IS the best 3rd move at white's disposal. Since you dont have any hangups against the Winawer hence there are no disadvatages to that move in your case. (unlike me  , hence exchange var.) Further,it definitely exerts more central pressure & has greater range than Nd2.

The only advantage of Nd2 is that it prevents the Winawer. That's why people like Karpov play it & it gives rise to the type of game more congenial to their style. (too slow & dry for my liking) So the positionally inclined will favour this move to Nc3. The disadvantage to Nd2 was mentioned in the last part of the above paragraph.