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


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.

O.k. guys, as you don´t seem ready to give up (not yet  ) - 
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   

All the best to you  (because you need it   )

Greetings

Gilmour

 

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


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:


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:


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:


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.

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


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.

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 

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

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. 

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.