I have noticed that when a French players talk about "their" defence is like when a priest talks about religion. Usually a French player thinks 1.e4 e6 and Black wins. It seems a matter of faith. A French player very seldom abandon it. I have been playing the French for 10 years now I am thinking about playing it 10 years more. What do you think? ::)

Are French Defence player's attitudes any different than long-term devotees of other defences?  I think you'd get similar feelings from anyone whose played an opening for a few years with decent results.  

The French is a great defense, and usually brings its advocates results no worse than the alternatives. Certainly you're usually going to get an imbalanced game in the vast majority of cases unless white plays exd5, in which case you've already equalized.

I've been playing it ever since I started chess, I won't be stopping now. Sure, my variations have changed over time, but the defense hasn't stopped producing for me.

I began also with french defence, mainly because in old times als 1.e4 player I had always difficulties against it.
Unfortunately I had also problems with black playing the french. At the time I switched to closed openings with white I also changed my repertoire with black and now play Caro-kann defence and Qd6 Scandinvian and value the reliability of these defences, which I always missed in the french. Somehow in every system I had the feeling that I stood very close to defeat from the very beginning and I had to use tactics to hold the position.
I come back to the french from time to time, because it produces very very interesting positions and it offers almost always chances for counter attack - however in most cases for me it´s the rubinstein fort knox.
And I´m not so sure, if one can speak of the french in case of fort knox, because pawn structures resemble more the caro-kann and scandinavian - but  at least it´s a french beginning.

What I consider as a huge disadvantage of the french is that it affords knowing a lot of opening and middlegame theory - may be more theory  a sicilian player needs to know.  If you can play hedgehog structures the sicilian world is open to you. As a french player you have to master isolani positions; backward pawns; closed pawn chains and not seldom everything during one game.  
In addition it´s not that bad if you know how to repulse mating attacks and you have nerves of steel. I can´t remember a single game, in which my king was really safe.

Teaching youngsters I nowadays very seldom recommend the french.
With regard to the practical chances in OTB games I consider the french behind 1...e5; sicilian, Caro-Kann and since the birth of the
Qd6 scandinavian only the fifth best choice in defending against 1.e4.

I´m sure french players disagree and defend "their" french right to the last cartridge :-) One reason for me not to play 1.e4 anymore


greetings

Gilmour

With all due respect, you don't have to master the isolani, backward, passed, hanging, doubled, closed or whatever pawn structure in order to play the French, you just have to push 1...e6 after e4. As far as I can see, the French is as good a defense as any other, and doesn't lead to such wild, er... enthusiasm as other openings, especially in the US of A. In Russia & Europe it is often the first choice for improving players, you may call it a poor man's sicilian, yet quite respectable in itself. As you say, Black gets used to many variations and subsystems, which is a good thing in itself. One danger though is to lock oneself into a kind of "white square repertoire" ; at some point it is necessary to try other setups, if nothing else to sharpen one's sense of danger.  

Pingudon wrote on 05/17/09 at 02:18:12:

I have noticed that when a French players talk about "their" defence is like when a priest talks about religion. Usually a French player thinks 1.e4 e6 and Black wins. It seems a matter of faith. A French player very seldom abandon it. I have been playing the French for 10 years now I am thinking about playing it 10 years more. What do you think? ::)

Sounds like a BDG-addict.

I also believe that you will find that any one who has played an opening for a long period of time is willing to defend it till the end. For instance I am a Birds Opening player. I wont say I play 1.f4 and win but I will say that my results have been better than when I played 1.e4 or 1.d4. I have a lot of fond memories from playing a 1.e4 gambit based repertoire but f4 is now opening choice. Am I crazy for sticking with an opening no. One would be crazy not to express their fondness for their favorite set ups.

I have played the French and still play it, not frequently but enough, in my games. What I like in this defence is that clear pawn structures and typical positions arise, which are easier for studying. For example if one takes Sicilian, then he/she must learn at least 10 different typical pawn structures, plans and concrete moves. This is not the case in French. You can learn 2-3 structures at the beginning and master them and then you can extend your repertoire introducing new structures and variations. Of course Black has some problems in certain systems, but I believe that a new paths will be found. I do not think that French is worse than Caro Kann or Pirc or Modern or Scandinav. It is a normal opening which offers both sides good chances.

May be I missed something way back when I used to play the french  :-)
If it is that easy to play an opening without learning and specializing in the pawn structures that mostly result from a special opening, well then I will play Najdorf sicilian from today on. Would be interesting to know how to master the french without knowing how to handle pawn chains.
And Tarrasch often ends in an isolani position, which you will have to play far less often in a scandinavian . Therefore I´m rather sure that choosing an opening often means choosing special pawn structures.

But on the other hand one has to know as many middlegame positions as possible  in any case. So I guess we needn´t argue about that point.


And I never said that french is worse than other openings, I just said that in my personal ranking it is on fifth place.

Greetings

Gilmour

Gilmour wrote on 05/18/09 at 20:33:16:

And Tarrasch often ends in an isolani position, which you will have to play far less often in a scandinavian . Therefore I´m rather sure that choosing an opening often means choosing special pawn structures.

It is up to Black to decide whether he wants to enters position types with isolated pawns. So i think it is not necessary at all to know them.
Just a couple of examples:
1) Black may play Qxd5
2) Black may choose 3...Nf6 instead of 3...c5
3) Black may choose Fort Knox
4) Black even may play ...dxe4 followed by ...Qd5 as a good surprise.

Of course everyone has his own preferences, for example I do not like playing the KID ;).
The fact that French has been played but strong GMs like Yusupov, Morozevich, Short, Topalov, Petrosian, Botvinnik speaks a lot about the opening. I can not recall too much top GMs playing Scandinav for example  ;). The only name which pops up is Tiviakov but recently his results are not so great in it.

Hi MilenPetrov,

of course there will always be chances so sidestep typical pawn formations, if you do not want to play them. Wether this is a good policy in the long run is another question.
Qxd5 in the Tarrasch sesembles more the Qd6-scandinavian  ;), doesn´t it ?!
3...Nf6 still often leads to isolani-positions, as black needs to move the backward pawn on e6 to free the lightsquared bishop unless he/she wants to employ the c8-d7-e8-g6(h5) manoever, which is rather tempi-comsuming. The advantage may be, that black can choose the moment to transpose to isolani-positions.
Fort Knox is from it´s character more a Caro-Kann than french defence; dxe4 followed by Qd5 may be playable, but does this give anymore the "french feeling" ? Then better play the scandinavian.

So I agree with you, that you have many possibilities in the french to sidestep special pawn structures but in doing so you lose a great deal of the aggressive options of this defence.

Greetings

Gilmour

And trust me  :) : in a few years nobody will play Nc3 anymore to sidestep the Qd6-scandinavian

I do not want to go deeper on what is good and what is wrong in the French because it is still in my repertoire. Of course both sides have their pluses ans minuses and surproise weapons.
And if you want to discuss something about Scandinav i think that French topic is not the right place. I am happy with my results and achievements in that opening and I welcome everyone who wants to enter it in my games. But of course if there are any variatons which deserve attention I am ready to discuss them but not here.

Gilmour wrote on 05/19/09 at 14:38:55:

Hi MilenPetrov, of course there will always be chances so sidestep typical pawn formations, if you do not want to play them. Wether this is a good policy in the long run is another question. Qxd5 in the Tarrasch sesembles more the Qd6-scandinavian  ;), doesn´t it ?! 3...Nf6 still often leads to isolani-positions, as black needs to move the backward pawn on e6 to free the lightsquared bishop unless he/she wants to employ the c8-d7-e8-g6(h5) manoever, which is rather tempi-comsuming. The advantage may be, that black can choose the moment to transpose to isolani-positions. Fort Knox is from it´s character more a Caro-Kann than french defence; dxe4 followed by Qd5 may be playable, but does this give anymore the "french feeling" ? Then better play the scandinavian. So I agree with you, that you have many possibilities in the french to sidestep special pawn structures but in doing so you lose a great deal of the aggressive options of this defence. Greetings Gilmour And trust me  :) : in a few years nobody will play Nc3 anymore to sidestep the Qd6-scandinavian

The Qd6 Scandinavian has been getting hammered in GM play of late, including its leading exponent Tiviakov.

The Fort Knox has its own character due to the lack of a light squared bishop, so while the structure is similar, it is markedly different from the Caro-Kann/Scandinavian where black keeps his bishop pair.

Qxd5 in the Tarrasch in no way resembles play from the Scandinavian, it resembles play from the Sicilian (both in structure, and white plans).

Black also has the Guimard which has risen in respectability and produces original structures, the 3...a6 (this leads to Isolani usually), and 3...Be7 which very often produces structures all its own due to ...g5 ideas. 3...Be7 is arguably the most aggressive choice for black, and it doesn't side-step anything, it just creates different options.

Oh man,

where to start ... and where to end. So in "short"

1. I can´t see that the scandinavian is "hammered" in grandmaster play. Especially with regard to black players  often being weaker than their opponents, their results are really acceptable.
Tiviakov lost a few games in the Ne5-variation, but overall his results are more than o.k.   And greek GM Kontronias lately also more and more becomes an scandinavian specialist with good results.

And by the way - may be you recognized that the french - especially in the upper class over 2650 is regularely smashed. Even specialists like Gurevich; Bareev seldom got a chance in this area and
Morozewich also "forgot" his french.
If you see the results of Anand, Svidler and Adams against the french it is easy to see that the french demands much of it´s followers.

2. In the Tarrasch with Qxd5 the queen moves  to d6 after Bc4 and later often goes to c7.
Now let´s look at the Qd6 scandinavian. There are several ways of handling this position. One of those possibilities is the formation e6; a6/b5 and Bb7 (if white allows this of course); the queen takes the journey Dxd5- d6 followed by c7. If you compare the structure of these two variations there are striking similarities:
pawn on e6; queen on c7; light squared bishop is developed on the queenside.

3. Fort knox and Caro-Kann
One of the strategies in the caro-Kann is to give up the bishop pair and then to build up  light squared control with pawns and knights. No matter if you take the caro kann classical Capablanca, the two-knights or some panow variations black often parts with the bishop pair . So I can´t agree that in the caro-kann black keeps the bishop pair.


4. I never said that Guimard/Be7-variation sidesteps certain structures. Of course every variation produces it´s own character and structures.


Everything I wanted to express is, that the basic, origin structures of the french are pawn chains and isolani positions.
And I´m pretty sure that I´m not the only one who believes that playing the french means mastering especially those two pawn structures.
By the way this is not "my wisdom". If you do not believe me, read Nimzowich or buy Jacoby´s chessbase DVD on the french pawn play. 2400 speaks for itself.

As lately "my part of the discussion" drifts more and more away from the topic initiated by pingudon I leave it this way.
For those who believe that one can master the french without knowing how to handle pawn chains and isolanis then do so.

Greetings

Gilmour

Gilmour wrote on 05/20/09 at 15:59:14:

Oh man, where to start ... and where to end. So in "short" 1. I can´t see that the scandinavian is "hammered" in grandmaster play. Especially with regard to black players  often being weaker than their opponents, their results are really acceptable. Tiviakov lost a few games in the Ne5-variation, but overall his results are more than o.k.   And greek GM Kontronias lately also more and more becomes an scandinavian specialist with good results.

His results of late are not "more than ok" (Ni, Svidler, Gashimov all beat him recently, he hasn't beaten a GM with it since before getting beat those three consecutive times). The novelty value that 3...Qd6 originally had has mostly worn off.

Using the fact black tends to be lower rated is an excuse. Higher rateds aren't using it, wait for it...because it's not as good as you think.

Just like the best of the best aren't using the French with any regularity, because 1...e5 and the Sicilian are just plain better.


Quote:

And by the way - may be you recognized that the french - especially in the upper class over 2650 is regularely smashed. Even specialists like Gurevich; Bareev seldom got a chance in this area and Morozewich also "forgot" his french. If you see the results of Anand, Svidler and Adams against the french it is easy to see that the french demands much of it´s followers.

Apparently you haven't seen Adams' score against Morozevich in the 3...Be7 Tarrasch, have you? +1 =2 -2 is not smashing. Yeah, he smashes everyone else, but he doesn't do well in that variation. Adams, being the Tarrasch specialist that he is, struggling against something shows the French is fine against him.

Svidler's record against 2500+ is not impressive. +9 -8 and a ton of draws. That is not smashing.

Anand does own the French, I'll give you that one. Anand is also a world champion, he owns a lot of things. +18 -4 and some draws is awesome.


Quote:

2. In the Tarrasch with Qxd5 the queen moves  to d6 after Bc4 and later often goes to c7. Now let´s look at the Qd6 scandinavian. There are several ways of handling this position. One of those possibilities is the formation e6; a6/b5 and Bb7 (if white allows this of course); the queen takes the journey Dxd5- d6 followed by c7. If you compare the structure of these two variations there are striking similarities: pawn on e6; queen on c7; light squared bishop is developed on the queenside.

Notice the words if white allows this. White has no choice in the Qxd5 Tarrasch, he has a very broad choice, however, against the Scandinavian.


Quote:

3. Fort knox and Caro-Kann One of the strategies in the caro-Kann is to give up the bishop pair and then to build up  light squared control with pawns and knights. No matter if you take the caro kann classical Capablanca, the two-knights or some panow variations black often parts with the bishop pair . So I can´t agree that in the caro-kann black keeps the bishop pair.

Parting with the bishop pair is only one aspect of it. It's the combination of having surrendered them, and the pawn structure.

The structure is similar, the play, however, is markedly different. Nobody is going to argue the Fort Knox is better than the Caro-Kann.

It appears that Gilmour is a Scandinavian or Caro Kann fan. He is trying to burn the French but it is still alive and flexible as GM Moskalenko states ;).
If he has something to show in Scandinav, please opena a new topic and show your ideas there. We will see whether they will survive. May be they will, but who knows...
Speaking against the French in the topic where all fans of this defence are sharing ideas seems not a good idea.
And about Black's chances - simply check this topic: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1241894660
Do you have something to say on that?

O.k. guys, as you don´t seem ready to give up (not yet  :D) -
another one from me.

We are still drifting away from the origin topic, but as "my" scandinavian is attacked I must react.

Why should one complain about a draw with black ?
If draw with black against other grandmasters is not o.k. - well then Kramnik should not be playing the petroff either as he has a huge drawing rate also against "weaker" grandmasters with this opening.
If a first class player like Tiviakov is held to draw by another grandmaster  - so what ?
I don´t rate this as a disadvantage of the scandinavian. And I can´t see that the french has more ways to play for the full point against weaker opposition than the scandinavian.

Ni, Svidler and Gashimov are not so bad, aren´t they. One can loose to them and looking at the opening I would dare to say that the losses did not happen because of the opening. And if you quote earlier games like Ni, Svidler and Gashimov then one should also not forget games like Anand-Tiviakov; Grischuk-Tiviakov; Kamsky - Tiviakov etc.  

results in 2009:

Sulskis 2573 - T.   0 : 1   Neustadt an der Weinstrasse 2009
Pikula 2570 - T.   0,5 : 0,5  Budva 2009
Inarkiev 2656 - T.  0,5 : 0,5  Moskow 2009
Mastrovasilis 2580 - T.  1 : 0   Budva 2009
Stojanovic 2472 - T.  0 : 1  Budva 2009
Lanin  2457 - T.   0,5 : 0,5  Moskow 2009

I wouldn´t call that bad, would you ? Or in other terms, do you believe that results would have been better with the french ??


Adams - Morozewich - I know the games. There you´ve found - may be the only player who was able to withstand Adams in the Tarrasch.
But if you need the talent of Morozewich then good night to everyone else. I don´t know the exact killing rate of Adams against other players - and we speak here of grandmasters - in the french, but as I could see from the games on chessgames.com it must be about 70 - 80 %.  

The fact that white has other systems against the scandinavian can hardly be mentioned as a disadvantage of the scandinavian or an advantage of the french Qd5 system in the Tarrasch.   I just tried to prove that Qd6-scandinavian in certain variations can be similar to the Qd5 french Tarrasch.
I would rather say that there are many variations in the scandinavian, because nobody has found a clear way to a significant advantage.

To MilenPetrov:
Of course I put my faith in the scandinavian. Show me what variation in your opinion kills the scandinavian and I will defend.

I don´t want to burn the french.
Play it - and suffer  :D

All the best to you  (because you need it   ;D)

Greetings

Gilmour

French is probably an opening which many 1.e4 dislike to face. Thats why they condemn it. I have played the french and still find it interesting as Khalifman also says in his "beating the french series".

GM Peter Kiriakov who always plays the french and probably always has .....completely condemned the french defence (strangely) saying it it very passive (in an ICC channel). Roman Dzindzichasvilli also claims it is very passive.
Yes it is passive.....but at the same time it is very resilent. White cant just wipe black of the board. Playing the french is like "playing in a box". You have to fight to get out and your oponent has to fight to get in and take you out from the box. But thats the point I guess. French players are used to get worse in the opening and out from that position  try to work their way back into the game and to get counterplay.

I myself prefer to play the sicilian now (sveshnikov and kalashnikov) which I find much more funny to play than the french. And it gives me more chances to imbalance the game.

French defence will always be there as an interesting alternative.

Novosibirsk wrote on 05/21/09 at 08:49:30:

GM Peter Kiriakov who always plays the french and probably always has .....completely condemned the french defence (strangely) saying it it very passive (in an ICC channel). Roman Dzindzichasvilli also claims it is very passive. Yes it is passive.....but at the same time it is very resilent. White cant just wipe black of the board. Playing the french is like "playing in a box". You have to fight to get out and your oponent has to fight to get in and take you out from the box. But thats the point I guess. French players are used to get worse in the opening and out from that position  try to work their way back into the game and to get counterplay.

Whether the French is passive, or not, depends on the player using it. If all a person uses is the Rubenstein/Fort Knox/Burn Variation then yeah, it's really passive.

Winawer/MacCutcheon are extremely combative.

As far as being used to being worse out of the opening - that news to me. I usually had no problem equalizing in the heavily theoretical lines, but admittedly of late I haven't been running into the Universal System Tarrasch against 3...Be7, which is the only area I'm aware of right now that black is really struggling theoretically. However, it seems the Guimard is doing well, so who knows...

The only time I end up worse out of the opening is in the less theoretical variations which require precision.

Statistics don't always lie. Both players having ELO 2600+: the French is played over 1200 times, the Scandinavian Qa5 slightly over 30, the Scandinavian Qd6 slightly more than 15.

Quote:

1...e5 and the Sicilian are just plain better.

Can you prove this statement? For what it's worth, ECO disagrees and claims that the French, 1...e5 and Sicilian all lead to equality with best play. I'm not claiming ECO to be 100% correct, though.

TN wrote on 05/22/09 at 09:01:53:

Quote: 1...e5 and the Sicilian are just plain better. Can you prove this statement? For what it's worth, ECO disagrees and claims that the French, 1...e5 and Sicilian all lead to equality with best play. I'm not claiming ECO to be 100% correct, though.

Statistically these 3 plus the Caro are relatively equal (with the sicilian a marginal top scorer).

In any case here's a game which ended Kasparov white streak at Linares and was his last official game in the French (iirc he scored worst against the French relatively speaking of course). Incidentally Radjabov was 15 when this was played 8-)

[Event "XX SuperGM"]
[Site "XX Ciudad de Linares"]
[EventDate "2003.02.22"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Garry Kasparov"]
[Black "Teimour Radjabov"]
[ECO "C11"]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 a6 8. Qd2 b5 9. a3 Qb6 10. Ne2 c4 11. g4 h5 12. gxh5 Rxh5 13. Ng3 Rh8 14. f5 exf5 15. Nxf5 Nf6 16. Ng3 Ng4 17. Bf4 Be6 18. c3 Be7 19. Ng5 O-O-O 20. Nxe6 fxe6 21. Be2 Ngxe5 22. Qe3 Nd7 23. Qxe6 Bh4 24. Qg4 g5 25. Bd2 Rde8 26. O-O-O Na5 27. Rdf1 Nb3+ 28. Kd1 Bxg3 29. Rf7 Rd8 30. Bxg5 Qg6 31. Qf5 Qxf5 32. Rxf5 Rdf8 33. Rxf8+ Nxf8 34. Bf3 Bh4 35. Be3 Nd7 36. Bxd5 Re8 37. Bh6 Ndc5 38. Bf7 Re7 39. Bh5 Nd3 0-1

The Qd6 scandinavian is "playable", but the queenmoves are "artificial",
in the end you are just a temp down.
I prefer the french over the Qd6 scandinavian any day.

Willempie wrote on 05/22/09 at 10:25:44:

[White "Garry Kasparov"] [Black "Teimour Radjabov"] 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 [...] 0-1

K. did not see 5.Nf3?

Stefan Buecker wrote on 05/22/09 at 11:22:56:

Willempie wrote on 05/22/09 at 10:25:44: [White "Garry Kasparov"] [Black "Teimour Radjabov"] 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 [...] 0-1 K. did not see 5.Nf3?

He must have known about one of the novelties in your competition ;)

I don´t see a reason, why the Qxd5 - Nc3 Qd6 manoever in the scandinavian should be artificial and the manoever Qxd5 Bc4 Qd6 in the french Tarrasch is not.  
Most people state that the Qd5 french Tarrasch is a solid way to play, but all at once the same people have their doubts of the same manoever in the scandinavian.
Where is the difference besides the fact that the Qd6 scandinavian is more flexible as one can also choose to position the white squared bishop on f5/g4  ??

A tempo down on its own need not be a disadvantage as long as the pieces stand in the right place in the end. I read a statement of - I guess it was Martin or Watson - who said scandinavian is all about  quality (of the pieces).
White needs a pawn on c4 to break open blacks position, stupidly enough Nc3 stands in it´s way.

And with regard to tempi play.  I´m no specialist in the sicilian but isn´t the sicilian the classic example for  better pawn structure against lacking development.  If black catches up in developing the pieces then he/she can easily get the better game.
May be the scandinavian is not as good as the sicilian (but who knows ?!) but black has usually a very solid pawn structure; if black succeeds in catching up develpment, where should the white advantage come from ?
The same of course in the Tarrasch Qd5-variation.

The only drawback I see for both the french and the scandinavian (or Caro-Kann and 1....e5)  is, that a weaker player has more chances to hold the better opponent to a draw than in a sicilian.
But may be that´s all the difference in "quality".

Greetings

Gilmour

TN wrote on 05/22/09 at 09:01:53:

Quote: 1...e5 and the Sicilian are just plain better. Can you prove this statement? For what it's worth, ECO disagrees and claims that the French, 1...e5 and Sicilian all lead to equality with best play. I'm not claiming ECO to be 100% correct, though.

There's a reason 1...e5 and 1...c5 both get played more by top players (and always have).

ECO is a great resource, but it always lags behind. Black is suffering much more theoretically in the French than he is in 1...e5/1...c5, and it's always been that way.

Obviously French players (including myself) feel it is great, but facts are facts.

The Universal System in the Tarrasch has been beating down 3...Be7, 3...c5 with 4...Qxd5 has a horrible score against 12. Bb3 of late, 4...exd5 is always slightly better for white, but black usually has enough play to draw, but no more. The Guimard has always been under a cloud, and only 3...Nf6 seems to be holding its own for equality right now in the heavily theoretical lines, but black has to live with knowing 9. Nf4 is a draw in the main line, and any patzer could play it.

At least black is doing great after 3. Nc3/3.e5, and other deviations.

Are you claiming French is on equal terms with the Petrov, Marshall Gambit, and Sicilian Najdorf?

Gilmour wrote on 05/22/09 at 13:49:17:

I don´t see a reason, why the Qxd5 - Nc3 Qd6 manoever in the scandinavian should be artificial and the manoever Qxd5 Bc4 Qd6 in the french Tarrasch is not.   Most people state that the Qd5 french Tarrasch is a solid way to play, but all at once the same people have their doubts of the same manoever in the scandinavian. Where is the difference besides the fact that the Qd6 scandinavian is more flexible as one can also choose to position the white squared bishop on f5/g4  ??

It's artificial in the Tarrasch, but so is white playing 3. Nd2 and blocking his bishop.

No such thing happens in the Scandinavian, white doesn't need any artificial moves.


Quote:

A tempo down on its own need not be a disadvantage as long as the pieces stand in the right place in the end. I read a statement of - I guess it was Martin or Watson - who said scandinavian is all about  quality (of the pieces). White needs a pawn on c4 to break open blacks position, stupidly enough Nc3 stands in it´s way.

God, you must know better than all of those GMs that play 3. Nc3.  ::)

Then again, earlier you claimed that 3...Qd6 will force 3. Nc3 out of business...  :D


Quote:

And with regard to tempi play.  I´m no specialist in the sicilian but isn´t the sicilian the classic example for  better pawn structure against lacking development.  If black catches up in developing the pieces then he/she can easily get the better game. May be the scandinavian is not as good as the sicilian (but who knows ?!) but black has usually a very solid pawn structure; if black succeeds in catching up develpment, where should the white advantage come from ? The same of course in the Tarrasch Qd5-variation.

If black hypothetically does a lot of things then every opening is as good as every other opening.

Theory and practice are two different things.


Quote:

The only drawback I see for both the french and the scandinavian (or Caro-Kann and 1....e5)  is, that a weaker player has more chances to hold the better opponent to a draw than in a sicilian. But may be that´s all the difference in "quality". Greetings Gilmour

1...e5 is on par with the Sicilian, it is probably the most correct choice after 1. e4 (this is reflected in GM statistics as well).

Unfortunately I couldn´t find an overall summary of correspondence statistics showing the score of the different openings, when theoretical preparation and tactical oversights do not decide so many games.
But looking at many correspondence tournaments the score of the sicilian defence seems to be far behind the success in OTB games and couldn´t even match the score of such "dubious" openings like the alekhine defence and was no way better than french; ck or 1...e5.
So I doubt that OTB statistics alone reflect the true theoretical value of certain openings.
But perhaps I chose the wrong tournaments.

And for the practical point-of-view ....
why slave away with a 100-hour trained petroff; marshall to get a draw when a one-hour prepared Fort knox does the same ?!
Never saw a reason to prepare the  sicilian, when 2.c3 makes a dead end to any ambition to play for the full point. Then better a well prepared Guimard  (or a well prepared Qd6-scandi  ;) )

Greetings

Gilmour

[quote author=BPaulsen link=1242526692/15#27 date=1243009302
1...e5 is on par with the Sicilian, it is probably the most correct choice after 1. e4 (this is reflected in GM statistics as well).[/quote]
That is what I said, it is just that the sicilian outscores the other by a very small margin.

BPaulsen wrote on 05/22/09 at 16:10:46:

TN wrote on 05/22/09 at 09:01:53: Quote: 1...e5 and the Sicilian are just plain better. Can you prove this statement? For what it's worth, ECO disagrees and claims that the French, 1...e5 and Sicilian all lead to equality with best play. I'm not claiming ECO to be 100% correct, though. There's a reason 1...e5 and 1...c5 both get played more by top players (and always have). ECO is a great resource, but it always lags behind. Black is suffering much more theoretically in the French than he is in 1...e5/1...c5, and it's always been that way. Obviously French players (including myself) feel it is great, but facts are facts.

I am not sure about the suffering and the always part. It would seem to me that all world champions until Anand and their competition either played the French or had a lousy score against it.
Furhermore it is a bit misleading to put 1..e5, 1..c5 and 1..e6 (and other first moves) in the same pot. Eg 1..e5 is played more often than 1..e6, but the real choice with the former as black is later, likewise with the sicilian.

Quote:

The Universal System in the Tarrasch has been beating down 3...Be7, 3...c5 with 4...Qxd5 has a horrible score against 12. Bb3 of late, 4...exd5 is always slightly better for white, but black usually has enough play to draw, but no more. The Guimard has always been under a cloud, and only 3...Nf6 seems to be holding its own for equality right now in the heavily theoretical lines, but black has to live with knowing 9. Nf4 is a draw in the main line, and any patzer could play it.

I never likes the other systems in particular not the Be7 one.

Quote:

At least black is doing great after 3. Nc3/3.e5, and other deviations.

3.Nc3 remains the best and gives most problems imo

Quote:

Are you claiming French is on equal terms with the Petrov, Marshall Gambit, and Sicilian Najdorf?

I would.
Which of these won a world championship?

Willempie wrote on 05/23/09 at 09:32:50:

[quote author=BPaulsen link=1242526692/15#27 date=1243009302 1...e5 is on par with the Sicilian, it is probably the most correct choice after 1. e4 (this is reflected in GM statistics as well).

That is what I said, it is just that the sicilian outscores the other by a very small margin.[/quote]

The higher the quality of players gets, the further the usage of the French drops.

Willempie wrote on 05/23/09 at 10:00:18:

BPaulsen wrote on 05/22/09 at 16:10:46: TN wrote on 05/22/09 at 09:01:53: Quote: 1...e5 and the Sicilian are just plain better. Can you prove this statement? For what it's worth, ECO disagrees and claims that the French, 1...e5 and Sicilian all lead to equality with best play. I'm not claiming ECO to be 100% correct, though. There's a reason 1...e5 and 1...c5 both get played more by top players (and always have). ECO is a great resource, but it always lags behind. Black is suffering much more theoretically in the French than he is in 1...e5/1...c5, and it's always been that way. Obviously French players (including myself) feel it is great, but facts are facts. I am not sure about the suffering and the always part. It would seem to me that all world champions until Anand and their competition either played the French or had a lousy score against it. Furhermore it is a bit misleading to put 1..e5, 1..c5 and 1..e6 (and other first moves) in the same pot. Eg 1..e5 is played more often than 1..e6, but the real choice with the former as black is later, likewise with the sicilian.

Fischer comes to mind as a lousy score against the French in comparison to other openings, but aside from that, no, not really.

Regardless of what black chooses after 1...c5/1...e5 it still opens with those moves. That they deviate more just means they are flexible.


Quote:

I never likes the other systems in particular not the Be7 one.

And playing a variation that allows white to reach a position in which he can obtain a draw by literally sitting and doing nothing (if black pushes too hard he'll lose) is depressing. There's nothing worse than getting hit with 9. Nf4 against a 1600. The Exchange French is less drawish.


Quote:

3.Nc3 remains the best and gives most problems imo

Black is doing fine in the Steinitz/MacCutcheon theoretically at the moment.


Quote:

I would. Which of these won a world championship?

Not the French, whereas one effectively shuts down 1. e4 in championship games (Petrov), and the Najdorf was the weapon of choice by Kasparov.

The French? The closest it ever got was Korchnoi.

Don't leave the Caro-Kann out of the championship conversation.  ;D Capablanca, Botvinnik, and Karpov have all been major proponents of it!

Another fact is that the French on ELO 2600+ level scores 60% (for White) and the Najdorf, slightly more popular with 1300+ games, 56%. I would not call that difference insignificant.

MNb wrote on 05/24/09 at 10:41:12:

Another fact is that the French on ELO 2600+ level scores 60% (for White) and the Najdorf, slightly more popular with 1300+ games, 56%. I would not call that difference insignificant.

Not many 2600+ folk here I would wager, and most of us play such types only rarely, so pretty insignificant to what happens in most of our games.

Just play an opening people, and play some chess.

Agreed, but we were having a

Scott wrote on 05/24/09 at 01:14:51:

championship conversation.

So I am afraid Bibs' post is the irrelevant one.

My comment was intended to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, (though I am a C-K fan) but, it is a bit strange how a defense with the reputation of the French hasn't had as much success at the top levels. Does it still have its reputation, then, because of the history behind it?

OK guys, if you want to compare French with other openings like Caro-Kann, Alekhine, Scandinav or something like that, this is not the right place to do that. If you prefer I can move the whole thread to the General Chess or Chit Chat and there you will be free to speak about every opening you want to compare to the French.
Please let us not lose time of our true French lovers reading material which contributes nothing to their interest. If they want, they can spend their free time in the sections i mentioned or somewhere else reading the "yellow" pages.
Let's keep this section for pure French Defence discussions.

Shabalov recently wrote that the main problem with the French is getting winning chances if White plays the Tarrasch.  I wonder how widely shared his opinion is.

Markovich wrote on 05/26/09 at 15:42:43:

Shabalov recently wrote that the main problem with the French is getting winning chances if White plays the Tarrasch.  I wonder how widely shared his opinion is.

what about exchange french...

trw wrote on 05/26/09 at 16:44:01:

Markovich wrote on 05/26/09 at 15:42:43: Shabalov recently wrote that the main problem with the French is getting winning chances if White plays the Tarrasch.  I wonder how widely shared his opinion is. what about exchange french...

The Exchange French isn't actually that drawish. In fact, it's definitely less drawish than the Petrov, despite similar pawn structures. Black has plenty of opportunity for asymmetrical play (white as well), but that being said - the Exchange French immediately puts each player on equal footing as far as winnning chances goes.

As far as the Tarrasch goes, it depends on what line black has a preference towards. 3...c5 with 4...Qxd5/4...exd5 are definitely hard to produce winning chances in. 3...Nf6 is no more than equal in theory, and with the theory being as deep as it is it isn't likely that winning chances are plentiful.

If winning chances exist at all for black at this point, it'll be in the Guimard/3...a6/3...h6, although it is hard to see how those will make greater demands of white than the other options, although the latter two options at least are more flexible due to their non-commital nature.

I'd imagine what GM Shabolov means is not only are winning chances problematic, but black can easily come out worse, while coming out better is much harder to do.

Markovich wrote on 05/26/09 at 15:42:43:

Shabalov recently wrote that the main problem with the French is getting winning chances if White plays the Tarrasch.  I wonder how widely shared his opinion is.

On his level it is undoubtedly true. On my level and even on yours I would say that 3...Nf6 offers enough winning chances. According to BPaulsen 9.Nf4 is drawish and I hope he will make clear why exactly. If he is right there is 3...Nc6.


trw wrote on 05/26/09 at 16:44:01:

what about exchange french...

If White plays c2-c4, play against the IQP. If White doesn't, opposite castling imbalances the position.

MNb wrote on 05/27/09 at 00:36:58:

Markovich wrote on 05/26/09 at 15:42:43: Shabalov recently wrote that the main problem with the French is getting winning chances if White plays the Tarrasch.  I wonder how widely shared his opinion is. On his level it is undoubtedly true. On my level and even on yours I would say that 3...Nf6 offers enough winning chances. According to BPaulsen 9.Nf4 is drawish and I hope he will make clear why exactly. If he is right there is 3...Nc6.

The main line of 9. Nf4 (black has no choice, other options leave him with much worse positions) results in black sacrificing the exchange for a pawn, along with just enough compensation in the form of an impressive center to maintain a dynamic equality. If black presses, he ends up worse. Any white player that uses the Tarrasch, and gets a high rated in the 3...Nf6 variation should keep in mind 9. Nf4 is a great weapon to either draw, or win when black tries to push for more, and they often do. Black's position cannot be safely improved unless white screws up badly.

About 9.Nf4 and the exchange sacrifice, I can post very long and interesting variations for Black where it's White which suffers to find best move over the board ... and maybe -(now GM) Mathieu Cornette recalls game I played with him at Bordeaux (APSAP tournament), when he was very very young. He tried to play the line with White and I won easily because of the main point of the variation: the hugge pawn center for only an exchange. As Black, as low rated player (2002) I am not afraid anymore for this specific line...and better prospects for White are surely in the closed main line (where exchange sacrifice exists too...but with Rxf3! typical move).

It certainly doesn't seem easy to me to avoid a slightly worse - but drawable - position vs the Tarrasch.

Look at all the interest in 3.. Be7/Nc6 etc recently. That's not because they're better than the traditional lines but they are (or perhaps were in the case of Be7?) less explored and playable and so offered much better chances to get interesting positions.
(indeed almost anything seems to be playable!)

At my level an utter non issue but I can certainly imagine a GM having trouble doing much vs well prepared 22/2300's and the like. The IQP stuff after 3.. c5/..a6 might be as good a try as anything.

dom wrote on 05/27/09 at 11:45:48:

About 9.Nf4 and the exchange sacrifice, I can post very long and interesting variations for Black where it's White which suffers to find best move over the board

Your doing that would be appreciated by many here, I'm sure.

It´s really enviable, that obviously all french players fight from the beginning for the full point and only fear being outprepared to a draw. Then french defence definitely must be one of the best openings.
I for myself am glad to stay on board no matter if I play caro-kann, scandinavian or my "old friend" the french.

I´m not sure if white can really achieve a draw in the Nf4-variation by force, but perhaps all who hate a draw with black and play  3...Nf6 may find a solution in

e4 e6 d4 d5 Nd2 Nf6 e5 Nfd7 Bd3 c5 c3 Nc6 Ne2 cd: cd: Be7
00 h5 f4 g6 Nf3 Nb6 g3 Bd7 b3 Nb4 Bb1 Bb5 and a later a5-a4

no forcing lines like in the Nf4-variant; looks at first sight only like a blockading system, something black should perhaps do on the queenside to switch later back to the kingside.
For those interested in this line, check Neukirch - Wolfgang Uhlmann 1967 - old but good.

Another alternative may be:

e4 e6 d4 d5 Nd2 Nf6 e5 Nfd7 Bd3 c5 c3 Nc6 Ne2 b5 !?

Greetings

Gilmour

By the way: GM Baburin once was asked why he always plays the dubious alekhine and not for example the respected najdorf - especially against weaker players - to get more winning chances.

Baburin replied that a player of about 2300 Elo perhaps more easily gets a draw in his alekhine . On the other hand the risk to loose against a lower rated player is not so high as it is in a highly theoretical and tactical opening like the sicilian najdorf.

Perhaps it´s the same with the french. May be the risk to draw with a weaker player is higher than in a sicilian, but on the other hand you also have more chances to survive against a stronger player.
So each medal has always two sides.  

All the best

G.

OK, let me add another point.
Almost 90% of forum visitors are players below 2500 and more than 60% are less than 2300 (sorry if i am wrong).
So at our level I think that the French is a good weapon because of the following:
1) Our opponents spend more time studying popular sicilian lines and less time for things like Alekhine, Scandinav, French etc.
2) They have some repertoire lines which may be not updated regularly.
3) Black can always play a new minor alternative or novelty somewhere thus surprising his opponent and geting the advantage of time and psychology, which of course creates winning chances even if the position is not so good.
So at all levels except top torunaments these openings are playable and create a lot of advantages for one who did his homework with Black and knows well his stuff.

dom wrote on 05/27/09 at 11:45:48:

About 9.Nf4 and the exchange sacrifice, I can post very long and interesting variations for Black where it's White which suffers to find best move over the board ... and maybe -(now GM) Mathieu Cornette recalls game I played with him at Bordeaux (APSAP tournament), when he was very very young. He tried to play the line with White and I won easily because of the main point of the variation: the hugge pawn center for only an exchange. As Black, as low rated player (2002) I am not afraid anymore for this specific line...and better prospects for White are surely in the closed main line (where exchange sacrifice exists too...but with Rxf3! typical move).

I haven't seen any improvements in years for the black side in the main line of 9. Nf4 (the main line having been around since the '80s). It's been dynamically equal for a couple decades now. If you've got new analysis, I'd certainly love to see it.

Sure, there's generally better prospects in the main line, but that is theoretically equal as well as far as I'm aware.

Markovich wrote on 05/26/09 at 15:42:43:

Shabalov recently wrote that the main problem with the French is getting winning chances if White plays the Tarrasch.  I wonder how widely shared his opinion is.

I tend to agree, the Tarrasch is the hardest to win against. That being said it is rather easier to score a draw than against 3.Nc3. Often the game is balanced (or slightly better to white) but without the dynamic imbalances you find in the Winawer or Steinitz lines (g5 anyone?).
3..Nf6 in that respect is the best (and imo also theoretically), but certain lines are very far analysed (ie the main line with Nce2 and Nf3). Having said that I think that goes for most openings starting with 1.e4. It is very difficult to generate winning chances against it if white wants a draw. Ie there is the Panov against the CK, the modern line in the Alekhine also makes it difficult to win (or the exchange), Petrov I dont need to delve into I think, in the Ruy there are also some drawing lines, nevermind that white can always play Giuoco piannissimo, in the scandi and Pirc black should be happy if white wants a draw. Only the sicilian is different in that respect, though imo that has a lot to do with the safer lines still result in imbalanced positions. Though we all remember Anand's last game against Krammers.

Not even in the Sicilian are you immune; the Alapin (aka c3 Sicilian) generates much the same problems as the Tarrasch French. With 2...Nf6 against the Alapin you can equalize, but only if you are prepared to learn some long theoretical lines, while every other second move for Black entails some risk (see Tiviakov's DVD and Sveshnikov's book for confirmation of this statement).

For French defence specialists, the Tarrasch is not the main problem though - Black has a wide choice of playable defences and can specialize in say two of these (e.g. a solid one where you might have to suffer a bit if White really knows how to press you, plus a more unbalancing one when you must play for a win); whereas the white player has to master a very large amount of theory after 3 Nd2 and be a good enough player to handle the very wide range of position types that can arise.

Nor is the exchange much of a problem. Most French specialists have a healthy plus score against it and a study of the games of pro players who specialize in the French (i.e. rely on it for a living) can be highly instructive.

Concerning the Advance, Sveshnikov contends that White simply has to be better in the position after 3 e5 than in the start position; and he may well be correct!  ;D However, in practice Black gets to fight on very familiar terrain and has a wide choice of playable plans and move-orders.

No, the real problem is 3 Nc3, which is comparable in importance to the Open Sicilian. On the one hand, as Black you are glad to be able to play your main system (Winawer, MacCutcheon, Dragon, Najdorf etc.) but on the other hand this is precisely where the greatest threat is contained. Against 3 Nc3 you have to really know the theory and you should have some ideas of your own as well, since IMHO White is somewhat better theoretically in every single line against 3 Nc3.

Paddy, what in your opinion is White's route to advantage after 3.Nc3 Nf3 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7?  I had been under the impression that 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 was holding up pretty well for Black, with the early ...a6.  Further I have the opinion that 6.h4 is not really a very serious test for Black.

@MilenPetrov: I agree that the French is an excellent OTB weapon for us peons.  It requires a fondness for playing with pawn chains, of course.  In CC it may not be quite as good, since White is free to consult his theory books.

I like the title of this thread, since its a question I ask myself frequently every time I lose to a GM or IM after having played the French and suffered with some passive position most of the game.

In the end though, after experimenting with various other stuff, I feel we cant completely blame the French - but there are dangers playing such an opening, well to admit it. Its a quirky fascinating  opening, maybe not 100% correct but below 2600 level probably as sound as anything else. For now I will keep the faith!

Paddy wrote on 05/28/09 at 10:42:26:

No, the real problem is 3 Nc3, which is comparable in importance to the Open Sicilian. On the one hand, as Black you are glad to be able to play your main system (Winawer, MacCutcheon, Dragon, Najdorf etc.) but on the other hand this is precisely where the greatest threat is contained. Against 3 Nc3 you have to really know the theory and you should have some ideas of your own as well, since IMHO White is somewhat better theoretically in every single line against 3 Nc3.

3. Nc3 Bb4 is struggling in the most critical variations after 7. Qg4.

After 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 black is doing just fine, so that leaves 4. Bg5.

4...dxe4 is extremely close to full equality theoretically last I checked. The problem is how drawish it is.

4...Bb4 is having problems with 6. Be3.

4...Be7 is doing okay as well with an early ...a6 like Markovich noted, and the Alekhine-Chatard is okay for black of late.

BPaulsen wrote on 05/28/09 at 22:22:50:

After 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 black is doing just fine

Really? 4.e5 is the move that scares me most about 3...Nf6, and has the practical advantage of eliminating various other stuff like the MacCutcheon.

I agree with all your other theoretical verdicts, but the bottom line is it doesnt really matter a damn once the practical game has started.

Actually is the Winaver doing so badly?

Ok 7 .. o-o may not be looking such fun but the poisoned pawn seems to be cropping up a bit recently -  Grischuk in the odd super tournament and Kamsky doing so in a candidates match vs someone as insanely well prepared as Topalov.

Keano wrote on 05/29/09 at 08:07:04:

BPaulsen wrote on 05/28/09 at 22:22:50: After 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 black is doing just fine Really? 4.e5 is the move that scares me most about 3...Nf6, and has the practical advantage of eliminating various other stuff like the MacCutcheon. I agree with all your other theoretical verdicts, but the bottom line is it doesnt really matter a d**n once the practical game has started.

Black is doing way better in 4. e5 than anything after 4. Bg5. In fact, black is doing well theoretically in multiple lines after 4. e5.

I've noticed that MacCutcheon, and even Winawer players are uncomfortable in it less because of the theory than the fact the counterplay isn't something they're used to. Whereas people that've long played the 4...Be7 against 4. Bg5 are much more at home, because the themes are similar. It's part of the themes we get used to in practical play, and it effects our ability to handle them well if we're not used to it.

Until I got the experience necessary to handle 4. e5, I was uncomfortable with it since I used to be a Winawer player only in practice. Not surprisingly, due to Winawer experience I was able to pick up on MacCutcheon themes much easier.

MartinC wrote on 05/29/09 at 09:08:06:

Actually is the Winaver doing so badly? Ok 7 .. o-o may not be looking such fun but the poisoned pawn seems to be cropping up a bit recently -  Grischuk in the odd super tournament and Kamsky doing so in a candidates match vs someone as insanely well prepared as Topalov.

The poison pawn has been cropping up, but the most critical variations aren't even getting tested in practice right now.

A thread by dom on the Winawer poison pawn actually mentions Tait's variation, which is a huge problem for black.

Markovich wrote on 05/28/09 at 13:01:28:

Paddy, what in your opinion is White's route to advantage after 3.Nc3 Nf3 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7?  I had been under the impression that 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 was holding up pretty well for Black, with the early ...a6.  Further I have the opinion that 6.h4 is not really a very serious test for Black.

I think that it is actually quite hard to say exactly what the theoretical standing of the Classical with 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 Be7 5 e5 Nfd7 is, because in recent years it has lacked regular support from among the top professionals. Instead, 4...dxe4 and 4...Bb4 are the pros’ choice.

There are two ways of looking at this:
a) Glass half empty: the relative neglect of 4...Be7 by the pros means that they do not trust it, lending weight to the traditional assessment that this line just has to be better for White, since he has already acquired several advantages: he has more space and he has exchanged his bad bishop for Black’s good one, leaving Black with two bad pieces (the c8 bishop and the d7 knight) and a persistent weakness on the dark squares.
b) Glass half full: there is still unexplored territory and room for creativity, and the fact that some very strong players (e.g. Kortchnoi, Morozevich, Bareev) are prepared to wheel it out from time to time indicates that, although not a guaranteed equalizer, the line is playable and probably not as bad as its reputation. It must contain many variations and ideas that have not been sufficiently “road tested” yet, and thus the evaluations (e.g. in ECO) should not be treated as gospel. Black can also be encouraged by these factors: his centre is solid and indeed practically unassailable in the near future; he can quickly build pressure on White’s pawn centre by ...c5 (once he has defused the threat of Nb5 in reply) and ...f6; finally the exchange of bishops has eased his cramped position a little and developed his queen to a useful square, eyeing both wings.

When students have reached a stage where they are ready and willing to try a half-open defence, this is one that I suggest, generally with decent results. I admit to having had a soft spot for 4...Be7 for some time, ever since I read the games of the strong Canadian GM Abe Yanofsky in his book “Chess – the Hard Way”.

Some specifics; IMHO, 6 h4 remains dangerous and unclear. Black has several playable options, but needs to know what he is doing. I consider 6...c5 to be fairly reliable, and the experimental Guimard-like 6...Nc6 (developing a piece and “threatening” ...f6 next) seems a promising area for research. I don’t fully trust 6...0-0 or 6...Bxg5 and consider everything else to give White a clear advantage.

After 6 Bxe7 Qxe7, most of the time one faces 7 f4 (but we can expect to see more of Watson's 7 Qh5), when both 7...0-0 and 7...a6 are playable. I encourage students to learn to play 7...0-0 first, since it is more straightforward. 7...a6 is admittedly more flexible (not yet revealing the monarch’s future location) , but making good use of that flexibility requires some judgement, based on experience, which first needs to be acquired.

For instance, after 7...0-0, any threat of Bd3xh7 can usually be met appropriately by ...f6 or ...f5, whereas in the 7...a6 line, once White has played Bd3 it can be very hard for Black to judge whether ...0-0 is safe or not, for instance see Pruess-Kraai, Berkeley 2008. Incidentally, at chesslecture.com. Kraai suggests that a logical way for White keep an edge against 7...a6 (which he prefers to 7...0-0) is 8 Nf3 c5 9 Qd2 Nc6 10 dxc5 Qxc5 11 0-0-0 b5 and now 12 Ne2, but again there is insufficient data. Besides, at almost every turn there are offshoots that have been played by very strong players: 8...Nb6 (Morozevich); 10...Nxc5 (Seirawan, Akobian); 11...Nb6 (Kortchnoi, Short).

Some other ideas that might be fruitful:  

7. f4 O-O 8.Nf3 c5 9. Qd2 Nc6 10. dxc5 Qxc5 11. Bd3 f6 12. exf6 Nxf6!? 13. O-O-O Rb8 intending ...b5. - WGM Danelian has scored well with this recently. The bad d7 knight finds a good square, the black king is safer and there is counterplay on the queenside as well as (possibly) against e3 and f2.

7. f4 O-O 8.Nf3 c5 9. Bd3 f5 10. exf6 Rxf6!? – Yanofsky almost beat Bronstein with this at Saltsjobaden 1948 (eventually drawn) but it has been generally dismissed as inferior since he lost with it against Gligoric at Dallas 1957; however, I think Black’s play can be improved.

7. f4 a6 8 Nf3 b6!? followed by ..c5; a Cuban idea, ensuring very different play from normal, since White’s usual dxc5 plan will be ineffective.

Put all this uncertainty together and finally mix in the very different structures of the MacCutcheon and the Burn and it becomes easier to understand that the widespread preference for 4 e5 is above all a practical one. Although the variation tree after 4 e5 is now enormous, at least with 4 e5 White is guaranteeing himself the same structure every game, and he can comfort himself with the thought that Black’s cramp will be worse without the exchange of bishops. However, since this is a typical French structure, and as a bonus he gets to keep his better bishop, Black can be satisfied too.

Sorry for the delay in replying - and then it turned into an essay!

Thanks, Paddy, for posting at such generous length and with so much insight.  

About 6.h4 0-0, I seem to recall that this was advocated in a recent book, but I can't recall which one.  Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

When I looked at 6...0-0, I could find ways for White to force a draw, but not to win, so I thought it might be interesting to play as Black.

I believe that the repertoire choices of the upcoming elite players will change and with it the role of the french on elite level. Mainly because asian players in my view will conquer the chess world or at least challenge the leading role of russian and ukrainian players even more than they did til now.  Sicilian probably will keep first place but many strong players from china,vietnam etc. have the french in their repertoire and keep using it with success (Ni Hua; Hua Lefong; Xu Yuhua; Ngoe Nguyen; Zhao Zon Yua; Wan Yuguo to name a few).

May be its because of their mentality; they are all real fighters with nerves of steel; ideal for the french defence. Petroff, Marschall, Berlin wall you find seldom in the repertoires of asian players. Either sicilian defence or french; a few CK, scandinavian and ruy lopez - but mainly they have fighting repertoires.
So I predict we will see a lot more of the french on elite level in the future. And only a question of time that a world champion comes from china with most probably using also the french as a standard defence to 1.e4 - and then nobody will discuss anymore if the french is 100 % correct, which  is  the case in my view.

I don´t consider the drawing potential of the french Tarrasch a disadvantage of the french. It´s more the other way round - 1.e4 players only have a draw in the Tarrasch - a disadvantage of 1.e4 and not the french ; sweshnikow won a lot of games in the advance system o.k. - but mostly against lower rated players; and the wins against other grandmasters did often happen out of equal positions and had little to do with the opening.
And against Nc3 what about Illushin´s variant with Nb6/a6/Bd7 - are there problems for black ? And the Steinitz 7...Qb6 variant ?

Greetings

Gilmour

I have seen a lot of games where White wins against the French. But I have not found any game where you can say tha black lost because of his defence. Very rarely you see that black is crushed! Some people say anand is a French killer but I think anand can kill any defence

Markovich wrote on 05/29/09 at 17:11:12:

Thanks, Paddy, for posting at such generous length and with so much insight.   About 6.h4 0-0, I seem to recall that this was advocated in a recent book, but I can't recall which one.  Does anyone know what I'm talking about? When I looked at 6...0-0, I could find ways for White to force a draw, but not to win, so I thought it might be interesting to play as Black.

You're welcome - consider it part payment for all the knowledge I've gleaned from your columns and posts to this forum!

OK, mutual admiration society meeting closed; 6...0-0 was advocated in Ziegler's useful repertoire DVD and there is also a short chapter on it in Moskalenko. It's interesting and I admit I haven't (yet) worked out a clear refutation, but I find it very, very scary - not the sort of French I'd like to play over the board.