Taljechin,

As you know, you quoted me out of context, but that's ok.  I was hoping for a discussion of the position rather than the move order.  Since most of the rest want to focus on the move order, it looks like I'm outvoted.

Where did Sacapawn go ?  This is getting interesting now with the last lines for White I posted.

Eureka! Sorry. Thanks for this TalJechin.

The icon with the blue arrow '->' gives the quote tags, where you can paste copied text - but not giving the time, poster and date as with clicking Quote instead of Reply...

Quote:


Quote:


Well, Smyslov_Fan, wasn't it you who brought up 3..d4 in the first place? 

Quote:


Just an observation:  This isn't the line under discussion in the title of the thread.

I have no idea why you think White should be any better here. You have to give some variation or winning idea.

20.Rad1 Rxd1+ 21.Rxd1 Be6

and now both

a) 22.Bxa7 Nd7 23.Be3 Rxa3 24.Bb5 h6 25.h3 Ne5

and

b) 22.f4 Nd7 23.Bf3 Rc8

look drawish

Quote:


After 17.-,Qxc3 (instead of 17.-,Qf5) 18.bxc3 e5 19.dxe5 Nxe5 White has the bishop pair but also the worse pawn structure. Looks equal to me.

1. e4 e6
2. Nf3 d5
3. Nc3 d4
4. Ne2 c5
5. c3 Nc6
6. cxd4 Nf6
7. e5 Nd7
8. dxc5 Ndxe5
9. Nxe5 Nxe5
10. d4 Bxc5
11. Be3 Bb4+
12. Nc3  Nc6
13. Be2

(13. Bd3 O-O 14. O-O

I really can't complain for this idea.  I still prefer to develop the bishop to e2 so then I can place it on the long diagonal and leave the d-file clear for the heavy pieces.  White, sooner or later, might play d5 and with Bf3 and a battery on the d-file and a rook on the e-file, where Black will have his Queen after your idea of  ....Qe7, this set up for White would be my preference.)


13...  O-O
This is your idea for Black  here.  Let's see--

14. O-O Qe7

Another wasted tempo

15. a3 Bd6  

Black had to waste a tempo.  However, white's 15.a3 is a useful move in this type of position.  Black, being forced to waste time while not fully developed is a sign that White and Black are not equal in this position.

16. Qd3 Rd8
17. Rad1

And white has ideas of d5, Rfe1, Bf3, b4, b5  and Black in this very position, after White's 17th move is still not fully developed and it is certain that White has the initiative driven by all his pieces that have a space advantage.  Black is not equal here in my opinion.

Thank you Tal for your input;  I appreciate your interest to see the  truth here.  I would also like to know what am I missing here.  So feel free to help me out.

The game that Toppy mentioned was included in the update by GM McDonald.  


"I appreciate your update on the two knights.  I use this from time to time as a surprise.  I have an observation if could kindly consider."

[Event "TCh-POL Ekstraliga"]
[Site "Lubniewice POL"]
[Date "2005.??.??"]
[White "Bielczyk,J"]
[Black "Socko,B"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2346"]
[BlackElo "2615"]

1.e4 e6
2.Nf3 d5
3.Nc3 d4
4.Ne2 c5
5.c3 Nc6
6.cxd4 Nf6
7.e5 Nd7
8.dxc5 Ndxe5
9.Nxe5 Nxe5
10.d4 Bxc5
11.Be3 Bb4+
12.Nc3 Nc6
13.Be2 Qa5
14.0-0 0-0

but now

15.Qd3 !  (instead of 15.Rc1, as it ocurred in the game)

15... Rd8

[15...Bd7 16.a3]

16.a3 Bxc3
17.Qxc3 Qf5
18.Rac1   (or even 18.Bf3)

I don't see how Black has equalized here at all.  I dont think Black has solved all his opening problems yet (and it's move 18!)

White seems to have very nice game in this line.

Now for the other game--

[Event "Open"]
[Site "Lindsborg USA"]
[Date "2004.??.??"]
[White "Shivaji,S1"]
[Black "Shulman,Y"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2257"]
[BlackElo "2549"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Round "8"]

1. e4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. Nf3 d4 4. Ne2 c5 5. c3 Nc6 6. cxd4 Nf6 7. e5 Nd7 8. dxc5 Ndxe5 9. Nxe5 Nxe5 10. d4 Bxc5 11. Be3 Bb4+ 12. Nc3 Nc6 13. Be2 Qa5 14. O-O

14...   Bxc3  

Here is where Black takes a different path from the above game.

15. bxc3 Qxc3
16. Rc1
(instead of 16.d5 as in the game)

I am not placing an exclamation mark to this move.  This  is very logical move.  I do want to call whoever is interested to look at White's position and be very very objective when evaluating it.  Here is what I observe:

1.White is completely developed
2.White has the two bishops in an open board !
3.White commands more space.
4.White already has the initiative.
5. Compare Black's rooks as they are right now to White's.  
6. Compare Black's bishop to White's bishop (any).
7.d5 is still a positional threat after White plays Bf3.
8.after White plays Bf3, Black has a sensitive spot on c6.
9.White has two weak pawns but Black does not have time NOR  pieces to exploit any of it.  Right now it is White who has the  initiative.

You will clearly see,  Black has not solved  his problems;  he is not equal, and White has a  very nice game, with an undisputable edge in this very position.

Quote:


Ignorant as I am, that's what I assumed. I thought, it's one of those repertoire books aimed at an audience which doesn't need a rep book in the first place. Sorry.

Quote:


White's IQP is posing problems in all these cases. I am unable to find a reasonable way to reach d5 or get the king side attack going. Opening the b file may not be correct. I need to investigate more.But...

Yes. I'm turning around to accepting your view. It's going to be a long grind in major piece ending.

@castlerock:  you're right of course, but I still don't like the resulting position. And I don't want to play the Winawer proper either... 

So maybe I'd better stick to playing the Exchange Variation, at least it leads to an open game even though it lacks central tension.  It also avoids the solid Rubinstein which I don't like to play against.

I also read the thread "I'm a typical open game player", which seems to indicate that the best way to play against the French is either 3 Nc3 or 3 exd5

Quote:


Sorry for sounding like a teacher with a cane. But, that's "Hope Chess", MK. It is always better to anticipate the best possible reply at whatever level one is playing.

In the exchange sac line, black will have all the fun in the short run and if white defends well, slight material advantage may count for something.

I prefer ...exf6.

Gomes posted by Top are worth looking at.

The oft quoted Two Knights line recommended in Chris Bakers rep book has now been more or less refuted. Enjoy.


[Event "TCh-POL Ekstraliga"]
[Site "Lubniewice POL"]
[Date "2005.??.??"]
[White "Bielczyk,J"]
[Black "Socko,B"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2346"]
[BlackElo "2615"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Round "8"]

1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nc3 d4 4. Ne2 c5 5. c3 Nc6 6. cxd4 Nf6! 7. e5 Nd7 8. dxc5 Ndxe5 9. Nxe5 Nxe5 10. d4 Bxc5!! 11. Be3 Bb4+ 12. Nc3 Nc6 13. Be2 Qa5 14. Qb3 e5 15. dxe5 Be6 16. Qc2 Bf5 17. Qb3 Be6 18. Qc2 Qxe5 19. O-O O-O 20. Rac1 Nd4 21. Bxd4 Qxd4 22. a3 Be7 23. Bf3 Rab8 24. Rcd1 Qc5 25. Be4 Kh8 26. Bd5 Bxd5 27. Rxd5 Qc6 28. Rfd1 Rbd8 29. Qe4 Rxd5 30. Rxd5 Bxa3 31. bxa3 Qxc3 32. Rd1 Qc7 33. h3 Kg8 34. Qa4 a6 35. Rd7 Qc8 36. Qd4 b5 37. Qd6 h6 38. f4 Re8 39. Kh2 Qc4 40. f5 Qe4 41. Ra7 Re5 42. Qd2 Rd5 0-1

[Event "Open"]
[Site "Lindsborg USA"]
[Date "2004.??.??"]
[White "Shivaji,S1"]
[Black "Shulman,Y"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2257"]
[BlackElo "2549"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Round "8"]

1. e4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. Nf3 d4 4. Ne2 c5 5. c3 Nc6 6. cxd4 Nf6 7. e5 Nd7 8. dxc5 Ndxe5 9. Nxe5 Nxe5 10. d4 Bxc5 11. Be3 Bb4+ 12. Nc3 Nc6 13. Be2 Qa5 14. O-O Bxc3
15. bxc3 Qxc3 16. d5 exd5 17. Rc1 Qa5 18. Bc5 Be6 19. Qb3 O-O-O 20. Rb1 b6 21. Bb5 Kb722. Bxc6+ Kxc6 23. Bb4 Qa6 24. a4 Kb7 25. a5 b5 26. Qg3 g6 27. Rfc1 Rc8 28. Qh4 h5 29. h3 Rhe8 30. Qf6 Ka8 31. Bc5 Rc6 32. Rc3 Rec8 33. Rbc1 Qxa5 34. Bb4 Qb6 35. Ra1 Rc4 36. Rca3 Rc1+ 37. Kh2 Rxa1 38. Rxa1 Rc4 39. Bd2 b4 40. Bf4 b3 41. Qe5 Rxf4 42. Qxf4 b2 43. Rb1 Bf5 44. Re1 b1=Q 45. Re8+ Qb8 0-1

Conclusion: White needs a better system verses the French.

Toppylov

Quote:


No. White need not. But if white chooses to play 12.Qe2 there is that standard exchange sacrifice available for black, with the compensation of d4 pawn and a mobile centre against no centre.

Rook for a piece and pawn is normally unclear and this coupled with a mobile center is sufficient compensation.

I wouldn't advise my students to play this way as white. Computers may feel otherwise, though.

Here is a line for your consideration. If you like white, you may play 12.Qe2. I don't like it. Computer may like it. But, please bear in mind that computers don't evaluate positions as unclear. It is a human concept.

1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.Ne2 Ne7 6.c3 Ba5 7.d4 0-0 8.a3 Bc7 9.Ng3 cxd4 10.cxd4 Nbc6 11.Bd3 f6 12.Qe2 fxe5 13.dxe5 Rxf3 14.Qxf3 Nxe5 15.Qe3 Nxd3+ 16.Qxd3 e5

Quote:


11...f6 appears to be a straight forward equaliser to me. After 12.exf6 Rxf6 13.Bg5 Rf7 14.0-0 or 14.Qe2 black has the luxury of including h6. Black can actually strengthen king side light squares with ...Bxg3.

To Smyslov_Fan: OK.. I'll post about 16...e5 if I find some analysis about it.

To urusov: I don't know why but Korchnoi played a6 in his game versus Klinova in 2005. Do you know the idea ? Is it only to force White for a Philidor pawn setup with bishop on e2 and avoid the knight pin with Bb5 ?

For Two knights's variation, I don't resist to mention Bellon's idea (Taulbut 's book about the French and ECG = Encyclopedia of Chess Games) in Bellon-Korchnoi,Palma 1972: 5.b4.  ECG gives unclear after 19 moves in Gurgenidze-Vaganian,URSS 1974

There is another funny line: 5.c3 Nc6!? (maybe Nf6! is the main line) 6.cxd4 cxd4 7.Qa4 b5!? (jackal=Adrian Skelton on NJ chess forum) 8.Qxb5 Bd7 9.Nexd4.

When White plays Ng3, Black can try an unorthodox  attack: 5.c3 dxc3 6.bxc3 Nc6 7.Ng3 Nf6 8.Bb5 Bd7 9.oo h5!? (supermarin and fox on france.echecs.com forum) 10.d3 h4 11.Ne2 h3 12.g3 Be7 13.Bxc6 Bxc6 14.Ne5 Qc7 15.Nxc6 Qxc6 16.f3 ooo unclear. I like the idea because after Bb5, White will often exchange his light square bishop and this kind of h-pawn attack might give advantage on light squares for Black.

I have played the .3..d4 in internet blitz. I can safely say based on my experience say that black is at least equal, and can usually play with several different reasonable set up against most white lines. The one exception is 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 d4 4.Ne2 c5 5 c3 Nf6! which is sharp and somewhat forced, but still leads to good and interesting play for black. This makes it unlikely for white to use some sharp fritz preparation to any great effect. The positions are complex and pleasant and offers black excellent chances to play an interesting game.

To elspringer: about the "Jackal attak", Glenn Flear wrote one survey about the book in NiC YB 72 ("The way of the Jackal"), and it's a good idea to read the crystal clear analysis (you can try to post him a question in the DaringDefence section). The Jackal has been subject of one updates in the French section and one thread in current forum.

I played the start of the line in my first FirstSaturday tournament in Budapest, and I wooked on the line after going back home.

Yes, Spassky-Petrossain,Moscow 1966 (Watson) is one good reference. 16....Qf7!? was the move of the game but I have recorded 16...e5!

The position after 13...Rae8 was subject of one update in Chesspublishing French section, with 14.Kh1!?  Rogers-Witt,2005

I don't think that 11...Qe7 is the best move, and 11...Bd7 was the move in Spassky-Petrossian game. Now if  12.Qe2 (in order to transpose) then 12...Nd4!? (instead of 12..Qe7) = Motwani-Webster,Gausdal 1992

After 12.Bg3 Be8 (common idea in the variation to control h5, to prepare Ch5, to exchange dark square bishop ... same idea in 11...g6 ; 11...Qe8 Watson . Compare with position in Tarrash variation with f6 when White plays Fg5-Fh4-Fg3 ) ; 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.Qe2 Ne4 or 13...Qe7 to transpose to Spassky-Petrossian;  12.a3 a6 ; 12.Qf3 Bd4

@elspringer,

I've never seen that except in Blitz or one-minute!

@Castlerock,

To be honest, I was only copying Psakhis' analysis and didn't study it very carefully last night.  I'll try to give some of my own comments later today.  I'm likely to play the Steinitz today in my club championship game (round 2 of 4), so the study will help me directly!

@Smyslov_Fan

I had a look at the position after 13...Rae8 and it is quite interesting. My encounter with Classical French is only with Burn through Ruebenstien move order. I respect Psakhis but I am not sure I understood your post.

1) Struggle is on e5 square and a3-a6 will have to be played at some point to avoid tactics involving b4-b5 squares. So why not immediately? After all both sides have absolute static balance.

2) Second is 14.Nc6. The point is white should over protect e5 square and black should strive to achieve e5. Logical white plan would be a3,Bg3,Kh1,f4 and/or Nc3-d1-f2-g4. Hence 14.Nc6 is not necessarily important,imho. Similarly, black has a6, Bd4, Nxe4, Bxe4, Bf6 and Nd7 in a bid to prepare for e5. I don't see why only 14.Nxc6

I don't have Psakhis' book and I would appreciate if you can post his analysis.

BTW, 13.Rae1 deserves an exclam!

@ Smyslov Fan: I am happy to see that you have been enlightened. I play Nc3 first because if they play c5 on the second move i play f4 bc i prefer playing that f4 sicilian rather than playing an open one.. ofcourse this is bc i dont know open sicilian theory. AND i have the roman DVD! LOL.

Also. when you mentioned the d4 move. they seem to have forgotten to mention. e4 e6 Nf3 d5 Nc3 d4 Ne2 c5 c3 d3 Nf4 c4 Qa4+ ! picking up both of the pawns... you might be surprised how many people fall for that one. I say this not to say that the line is awesome, but to show that it has its poison.

@ Gueler: when you say: "6. ...Nc6 7.Bf4 Bxc5 8. Bd3 Qb6 9. 0-0.

Psakhis has some analysis, let me see what else I can find. Two plans I have seen, are to go for the pawn on b2 " There is a problem going for the b2 pawn. Qxb2 Nb5! (threatning Nc7+ forking) after you move, i will go Bd2 followed by Bc3 and i trapped your queen.. once again, this line has alot of traps for the unaware. I believe Qb6 is a mistake. f6 is the move.

For those of you taking about the Fort Knox variation. dxe4 Nxe4 followed By Bd7 and Bc6- Yes, white cannot play the good lines with a early c4 and d5, but take a look at two of my games on this :

[Event "ICC 5 0"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2005.09.27"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Kamikaze-Squad"]
[Black "Goldmund"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ICCResult "Black checkmated"]
[WhiteElo "2401"]
[BlackElo "2523"]
[Opening "French: Fort Knox variation"]
[ECO "C00"]
[NIC "FR.01"]
[Time "20:09:25"]
[TimeControl "300+0"]

1. e4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bd7 5. d4 Bc6 6. Bd3 Nd7 7. Qe2 Ngf6
8. O-O Bxe4 9. Bxe4 Nxe4 10. Qxe4 c6 11. c3 Be7 12. Re1 O-O 13. h4 Nf6 14.
Qe2 Qa5 15. Bf4 Rfd8 16. Ne5 Re8 17. Rad1 Qxa2 18. Rd3 Nd5 19. Bh6 Bf6 20.
Rg3 Ne7 21. Ng4 Ng6 22. Nxf6+ gxf6 23. h5 e5 24. Qf3 Re6 25. hxg6 hxg6 26.
dxe5 Rae8 27. Qf5 Kh7 28. Qh3 Kg8 29. Qh5 fxe5 30. Qh4 Qxb2 31. Bg5 f5 32.
Bf6 Kf7 33. Qh7+ Kxf6 34. Rxg6# {Black checkmated} 1-0

Event "ICC 5 0"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2005.09.26"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Kamikaze-Squad"]
[Black "Goldmund"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ICCResult "Black resigns"]
[WhiteElo "2386"]
[BlackElo "2479"]
[Opening "French: Fort Knox variation"]
[ECO "C00"]
[NIC "FR.01"]
[Time "21:12:48"]
[TimeControl "300+0"]

1. e4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bd7 5. d4 Bc6 6. Bd3 Nd7 7. Qe2 Ngf6
8. O-O Nxe4 9. Bxe4 Bxe4 10. Qxe4 c6 11. Re1 Be7 12. c3 O-O 13. Bf4 Nf6 14.
Qe2 Qb6 15. Rad1 Rfd8 16. Ne5 Re8 17. Rd3 Rad8 18. Rg3 g6 19. Bh6 c5 20.
dxc5 Bxc5 21. Qf3 Be7 22. Bg5 Qxb2 23. Bxf6 Qd2 24. Rf1 Bxf6 25. Qxf6 Rf8
26. h4 Rd5 27. h5 Qe2 28. hxg6 hxg6 29. Nxg6 {Black resigns} 1-0

That Goldmund is GM Goldmund. So if you guys have any comments on those games it would be nice to see since I havent analyzed those so any theoretical recommendation is appreciated.

And Last, I am interested in discussing the positions where most of the theory ends.. Thing is that there is very little analysis on this line and not too many games for example:
1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. d4 c5 6. dxc5 Nc6 7. Bf4 Bxc5 8.
Bd3 f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. O-O O-O 11. Ne5 Qe7 12. Qe2 Bd7 13. Rae1 Rae8
That is one of the positions. if you guys have any independent analysis, or any of your french books, i would like to see whats up.. well guys thanks alot!!

Quote:


Several strong players have employed the Two Knights  as an occasional anti-French weapon - off hand I can name GMs Benjamin, Chandler and Rogers. I also noticed some years ago that it featured/s in the "first repertoire" of many up-and-coming eastern european juniors, e.g. Macieja, the Kosteniuks, the Kosintsevas, presumably at the instigation of their coaches. I suppose that its main virtues from the white point of view are: rapid development; a semi-open position; a few nice traps; most games will reach the key position 1.e4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.d4 c5 6.dxc5 Nc6 7.Bf4 Bxc5 8.Bd3 f6, so White has a good chance of getting a familiar position (this is one of Baker's points in his book); it serves as an elementary introduction to the concept of blockade (e5);  and it avoids the Winawer (which, whatever its theoretical status these days, can be very difficult for less experienced players to get their heads round).

So the Two Knights against the French is not daft. On the other hand, it IS theoretically less threatening to the French than the main lines -  but only as long as Black has studied Watson or Psakhis. And it's oh so easy for Black to go wrong e.g. with the routine 8...Qb6.

Quote:


If I was black in this line I wouldn't lose any sleep over dxc5 either. But transpositionwise, I don't agree with S_F; 2.Nc3 c5 3.Nf3 is either a normal sicilian or one of the anti sveshnikov lines where white scores quite OK. And 3...de4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gxf6 6.d4 can be reached through the Rubinstein as well.

3...d4 is not bad, but hardly a '!', for one thing in practical play white will be delighted to have gotten the opponent off his 'french track', e.g the following rapid game:

Klinova,M ( 2391 ) - Korchnoi,V ( 2619 ) [C00]
Pivdenny Bank Geller Mem Odessa UKR ( 9 ), 03.07.2005

1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 d4 4.Ne2 c5 5.Ng3 a6 6.Be2 Nc6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.d3 e5 9.h3 g6 10.Nh2 Bg7 11.Ng4 Ng8 12.f4 exf4 13.Bxf4 h5 14.Nh2 h4 15.Nh1 g5 16.Bd2 Ne5 17.Nf2 f6 18.Nfg4 Ng6 19.Nf2 N8e7 20.Bg4 Bxg4 21.Nfxg4 Qb6 22.a3 0-0-0 23.b4 c4 24.dxc4 Qe6 25.c5 Qxe4 26.Nxf6 Bxf6 27.Rxf6 Nd5 28.Rd6 Ngf4 29.Qg4+ Kc7 30.Bxf4 Nxf4 31.Nf3 Ne2+ 32.Kh2 Qxg4 33.hxg4 Rxd6 34.cxd6+ Kxd6 35.Re1 Nc3 36.Nxd4 Kd5 37.Nf3 Rc8 38.Re5+ Kd6 39.Rxg5 Ne4 40.Rg7 b5 41.Nxh4 Rxc2 42.Rg6+ Kd5 43.Rxa6 Ra2 44.Nf3 Kc4 45.g5 Re2 46.Re6 1-0


1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 d4 4.Ne2 c5 5.c3 Nc6 6.cxd4 cxd4 7.Qa4 Bc5 8.b4 is one of white's points.

But black has also ideas:

Guseinov,K ( 2505 ) - Mamedyarov,S ( 2605 ) [C00]
WJun, Nakhchivan AZE ( 8 ), 2003

1.e4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 d4 4.Ne2 c5 5.c3 Nc6 6.cxd4 Nf6! 7.e5 Nd7 8.dxc5 Ndxe5 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.d4 Bxc5!

which might be the reason Klinova played 5.Ng3, making the old geezer think for himself.

If white is willing to play this line, s/he could expect to get to dxc5 it in about 75% of the games after 1.e4 e6 - so why would white want to learn the Winawer too???

True, the move order in question avoids winnaver. But opens other avenues such as fort knox, burn, Rebenstien, Guimard and in some cases McCutcheon. So from white perspective, white cannot hope to reach Steinitz all the time. It is the case with normal move order also. Just thought I would mention.

BTW, I keep it in my repertoire against BDG The move order is 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Nf3 c5 

Jokes apart, white has to keep a pawn on e5 and over protect it and use the space for king side attack. In that sense, both Bf4 and f4 are good plans.

PTF3 has analysis for this line. Anand's white games might provide lot of insight.

@ Smyslov_Fan

You said to Charles_G "I don't understand why White would play the move order you suggest."

Consider that compared to your variantion, Charles can achieve his desired position avoiding a standard Winawer.

@Charles, I have seen your variation being played also with Nf3 and Nc3 in reversed order.

Coming back to your question, the critical position arises, I believe, after 6. ...Nc6 7.Bf4 Bxc5 8. Bd3 Qb6 9. 0-0.

Psakhis has some analysis, let me see what else I can find. Two plans I have seen, are to go for the pawn on b2 - which will cost some time - or to go for K-side castle - be aware of a potential Bh7+ sac, after that consider undermining the white center with f7-f6 and play with hanging pawns, trying to push e6 to e5

I don't understand why White would play the move order you suggest.

A much simpler and probably better way to reach the same position is: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 (a normal Steinitz variation) Nfd7 (note that you missed the possibility of Black dropping his N by not saying which N.  In correspondence chess, the game would be over if you did that!) 5.Nf3?! (f4 is better) c5 6.dc5 is covered very well in numerous books on the French Steinitz.

To put the analysis of Psakhis, Harding, Watson and others in a nutshell, this way of playing the French Steinitz poses no serious threat to Black.  Black simply develops (6...Nc6) and is happy to play the standard French ideas of undermining White's already weakened center without fear of any nasty surprises.

It is becoming increasingly rare (according to Psakhis in a book published this year) and White has better moves anyway.  So why White would transpose into this line is beyond me.

A better try for White is, instead of 5.Nf3, 5.f4 when we reach main-line Steinitz position and there's quite a few rich ideas for both sides.