Here are some statistics of white's score from my DB:
Both players 1.e4          1.e4 e6
2700+          55.8%       60.6%
2600+          57.1%       60.7%
2500-2600    54.6%       54.8%
2400-2500    54.7%       55.3%
2300-2400    54.3%       54.7%

...
more important data 

....

The first statistic that popped up is bad news for the French: With both opponents above 2700, the French scored 61%-39% for White (with a 44% drawing ratio, 11% less than the figure for all games), whereas 2700+ games in all openings had a 56%-44% ratio. Although this basically means that in a 20 games tournament Black would be only a point behind using the French instead of a generic opening, that is still quite significant, and the performance rating advantage for White is greater than White's normal advantage in the 2700+ database by 60 points, which is certainly nontrivial. The sample space was rather small, however, and this led me to wonder about the breakdown of these games. I have noticed for years that the elite players, who are frequently involved in closed events, have had a tendency to use the 3...dxe4 versions of the French to try to draw as Black (and taking short draws). In fact, no less than 30% of these 2700+ games are in those variations, as opposed to merely 8% of 3...dxe4 Frenches in Megabase as a whole. And the results for those variations were poor, as with other passive lines; whereas a more dynamic line, the Winawer Variation, had a 54%-46% ratio and 42-point rating spread, both of which are actually better for Black than for all the games in this 2700+ database. I've noticed before that when these top players use an opening to draw as Black (like the 3...dxe4 systems), they indeed get more draws, but have a mediocre or worse performance. The Petroff Defence, for example, draws at a spectacular rate, but performs a bit worse for Black than the average defense at 2700+ levels (and worse than that at lower levels). You'd think a high percentage of draws would help Black's performance rating; but I think that 2700+ players using the Petroff tend to accept the draw when offered, even if they have a small advantage, whereas with White they are more inclined to play for a win. Similarly, players at 2700+ may need to employ the French with more ambition in order to improve its performance - in my opinion, it isn't a very good drawing weapon.

The news gets much better for Black in the 2600-2699 region, with of course a much larger sample space. Now using the French results in a 57%-43% spread, one point worse than in the 2600 database as a whole (equivalent to 1 more loss in 100 games), and because of the rating differential the performance rating spread is only 9 points lower than the average of other openings (having the Sicilian Defence in the pool accounts for more than this gap.) In fact, this performance is as good as or better than other 1 e4 defences. Curiously, using the example above, the Petroff does poorly at this level with 59%-41% and a 41 point performance rating deficit below normal, even with a very large sample of games. I suspect that the same people questioning the 'correctness' of the French wouldn't assess the Petroff in the same way.

Finally, for all games in Megabase, the French produces nearly identical results as the database as a whole, and does better than most individual 1 e4 openings (because the Sicilian at 51%-49%, and taking up over 20% of all chess games played, makes the others look bad!). That includes, for example, the traditional Ruy Lopez after 3...a6 4 Ba4, considered about as sound as it gets. I should also say that, as was pointed out in the Forum, the French does as well or better than major 1 d4 defences (usually about the same).

My conclusions: The French has indeed performed worse than the average opening at the 2700+ level; I think that's at least partially explicable by a skewed choice of variations (within a very small sample space), and not too worrisome. On the positive side, it does well in all other ranges (up to 2700). At any rate, I think it's fair to call the French 'correct'; if it isn't, then arguably nothing besides the Sicilian Defence is! Still, I haven't put a great deal of time into this investigation, so you may want to generate your own figures, use other criteria, or challenge the assumptions. Forum material, perhaps?

I tend to agree with Markovich. If 1...e6 can just be declared somewhat bad for Black by a bunch of patzers like us, what hope does chess have period? Play what you like an don't worry about the popularity at the top level. Bent Larsen played all kinds of unpopular things and was one of the most successful tournament players ever. I can think of 3-4 masters in my area of Ohio alone that only play the French and are extraordinarily successful. 

I think the only problem with the French is that it is out of fashion as a means of achieving a winning, unbalanced position. Right now the Sicilian seems to offer more opportunities for a Black victory in the eyes of the chess world. If semi-closed openings were so bad for Black then why is the Caro-Kann so popular at present? ...[snipped]

I remember Grandmaster Bareev coming to Southern California and, during a lecture, telling us that the French Defense was "not correct." And that was coming from a fan. 

After playing the French for a long time and examining hundreds of master games, I tend to agree with him. There are bright spots, such as Shulman and Grischuk's handling of the Poison Pawn Winawer. Most variations after 3.Nd2 and especially Nc3 favor White. When a defense loses it's popularity it's because it becomes difficult to win with and because it lacks a champion to show the way. It just seems to me that many lines are a pain to defend and White now possesses the theory (given all the computers out there) and technical know-how to execute Black in would would ordinarily be inferior but messy positions. 
This doesn't mean it can't be played against 2000 ELO players though.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 12/16/09 at 16:29:50:


I just checked these two tourneys. It is simply enough to falsify the two statements, as it proves that
a) It is played by GM's well beyond the 2.600 border. It is even played by GM's beyond the 2.700 border
b) The results are close to 50%. Which simply is about 5% better than the overall average of black's score.

Personally, the French never game me much trouble as white, it's not even drawish like the CK or the dreaded Petroff, it just gives white  very nice play and initiative.

I was looking through chessgames.com at the games of Victor Korchnoi in the French and saw some pretty short wins by white, especially by strong 1.e4 players like Kasparov, Anand and Morozevich.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1220562

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1005713

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1266342

Those games certainly create the impression that on the highest of chess levels, black must play very accurately just to survive out of the opening without getting mated.

I wish that were only true, however at the stratospheric levels of 2650+ or 2700 I have the feeling my beloved French may not be as Khalifman puts it "even a fully correct" opening - as I said before its irrelevant for the rest of us, but look at the way expert Mikhail Gurevich was made to grovel against Leko in the candidates - that particular agony of suffering a hopeless bad bishop ending doesnt happen to him against lesser mortals.

Please show me the 'refutation' you speak of. If this opening isn't 'fully correct', then surely proving a significant advantage for White will be trivial. 

Obviously I would need to reveal my analyses of the entire French complex to prove that Black equalises, but a) this takes too long, b) I don't have time and c) would probably be better for another thread.

I wish that were only true, however at the stratospheric levels of 2650+ or 2700 I have the feeling my beloved French may not be as Khalifman puts it "even a fully correct" opening - as I said before its irrelevant for the rest of us, but look at the way expert Mikhail Gurevich was made to grovel against Leko in the candidates - that particular agony of suffering a hopeless bad bishop ending doesnt happen to him against lesser mortals.

Interesting also was that after Radjabov won this "brilliancy prize" (which was a disgraceful decision in itself) he nevertheless abandoned the French defence after this tournament - in fact I think he abandoned it during the tournament for the latter part.

Bogojump wrote on 08/16/09 at 11:12:47:


Miles defeated Karpov with St. George. One single game does not say anything about the theoretical status of the opening. Also as far as I remember Kasparov reacted very well in the opening, Khalifman follows him up until move 13 in "Opening For White according to Anand, vol. 6" after which he suggests 14.Bg2 instead of 14.f5, played by Kasparov.

A few years ago, I did a statistical survey of my success rate with the French.  At that time, I scored approximately 70% with it as Black.  Not bad, eh?  This included wins over one 2400, a few 2200s, and several people right below that rating.  Also, a draw against GM David Bronstein (albeit in a simul).  And my rating during these years was a solid B-player... 1650-1860 (I say B-player because I spent more time there than in the A category).  

I don't worry very much about "success rates" of top GMs because I'm not a top GM.  I try to learn and understand the positions, and because I've gotten familiar with them over the years, I play them well, and I would confidently play the French against Kramnik, Topalov, Anand, or anyone else.  I'd lose, but I think you play better in openings that lead to middlegames you're familiar with.

Then there is the element of fashion.  A few years ago, the French was all the rage, and you would be hard pressed to find a "top GM" who didn't at least dabble in it (Kasparov being the exception, of course).

I think it's a very bad idea to base your openings on what "top GMs" are playing.  THat can be an element in your decision, of course, but it is more important to find out where you are comfortable, and go with that.  This involves, at least, looking at other openings (for example, I have never played the black side of 1.e4 e5, but I have no issues with looking deeply into Open games, because I think it can add to my understanding of the game).  All you need to do is look at the many transpositions from the Ruy Lopez to the Kings Indian.  I don't consider the Ruy that tactical, especially compared to the Kings Indian, but you have to know when the transpositions occur, and how to handle positions that do, and don't, transpose.  I look at the most boring Queens Indians and the most ridiculous openings, such as the Grob or the Mekele Mobele (I'm sure the spelling is wrong).  As long as I can learn something from it, I'll look at it.  This is the approach I think everyone below IMs should have.  So I don't think it's relevant what "top GMs" are playing this week.  Like the weather in San Francisco, it is highly subject to change.  

What I am trying to say is: if it is not 100% sound for the very good players it means that it can not be very good for lesser mortals.  Perhaps we struggle with the French and thanks to an error of the other player we win or draw the game. Why not play a 100% correct defence from the start? What do you think? ( I am sorry about my english)