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.

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

Pingudon wrote on 05/17/09 at 03:18:12:

Sounds like a BDG-addict.

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.

Gilmour wrote on 05/18/09 at 21:33:16:

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.

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.

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