I don't know with Nc3, but in the 3.Nd2,h6 line, a very good player told me some months ago that if White don't play an early e5, that move (h6) is not justified so.... not so good (a tempo wasted). And that's because I was absolutely fascinated with the chapter on that in Dangerous Weapons The French book.

If White plays standard, with e5, Bb3, Nf3, etc.... h6 has a lot of interest to me. And the vast majority of foes I will face will commit to an early e5 for sure (in moves 4 or 5). But... the thread W plays the player correctly is there.

Maybe in the 3.Nc3 line that thoughts apply also. Or not 


Salut,

Dear Castlerock,

Coming from someone who doesn't like "sweeping generalisations", your remark was a bit cheeky.
Anyway, I haven't had time to look into MNb's suggestion, but 6. ...de ; 7. Qg4 Ktf6 would my instinctive reply.

                                                           Regards,
                                                              Hubert

[quote author=castlerock link=1142611685/30#43 date=1145021377]3.Nc3 h6 helps only if white obliges by playing e5 after ...Bb4 or ...Nf6. This may cut out lot of options for white. Without e5 things are definitely not rosy for black.
[/quote]

What variations are you talking about?

But still nobody cared to react on 4.Be3 Bb4 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 dxe4 7.Qg4 +=, except Dom, who agreed. So I may conclude, that there is consensus about this?

"We can all go home and discard the entire French based on that analysis."
Not really. In quite a lot of variations of the French Black solves the problem of the queen's bishop one way or another. In the line I gave I don't see it; I think that bishop on c8 will become a long term problem.
I am not sure what Smyslov_Fan means with 5.Be3 Bb4. I advocate 4.Be3 Bb4 5.a3 +=, as I have indicated a few times before.

3...h6 4.Be3 (I insist, that this must be White's best) Nc6 and now 5.e5 (5.Nf3 dxe4 looks satisfactory indeed) Ne7 (White will be happy after Bb4?! 6.a3 or 6.Qg4) 6.f4 Nf5 7.Bf2 and White has an edge; Black still has that bishop on c8.

@Uberdeker:
for the second time you have ignored my suggestion 4.Be3 Bb4 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 dxe4 7.Qg4 +=.

@Dom
to my amazement 3...dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nc6 5.Be3 has netted Black 3 wins, 1 draw and no losses. Still it seems to me, that h6 is not so useful here, while the extra move Nf3 is. I must take a closer look at it. It might be, that 3...h6 4.Be3 Nc6 5.Bb5 is White's best. It is all very unexplored of course.

I sometimes see 3...h6 when I play the 3.Nd2 Tarrasch.  It makes no sense.  If black thinks that a move like 3...h6 makes sense, why not play it immediately in response to 1.e4?  All black is doing is trying to take white out of his French book.

In fact, I already played 4.a3 last year against Uberdeker. Its mockery value should not be underestimated.
However, I can't say if the Kosteniuk game followed our path because I don't remember Uberdeker's treatment (it was blitz).

I don't remember which game, but 3...h6 occurred in the recent (2006) Women's FIDE KO Championships and White responded with a very early a3.  I'll try to find the game.  However, I agree with others that this line is probably not in any way theoretically critical.  White won a fairly unremarkable game. 


If you're interested, I'll try to dig it up.  But as a French player, I'd hate to be pushing h6 without a specific reason.  I don't see a good reason for such a time waster on move 3 unless 3...Nf6 4.Bg5 scares Black so much.  Then maybe Black should play 1...c5 instead.

Hello Uberdeker,
The main idea for White to reply a Winawer strategy (Bb4 move) is to use Steinitz's idea of an exchange exd5.
It was known as the "refutation" of the Winawer until Nimzowitsch improves Black  strategy around 1920.
I will use precisely the classical move order to reach the position:
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.exd5 (Steinitz) exd5 5.Nf3 h6 (Paulsen-Lichtenstein,Berlin 1864 ; nowadays Ne7/Nc6/Bg4/Nf6 are the moves ... I use only this game as an example of strange move for Black) 6.Bd3 Nf6 (6..Bg4 7.h3) and here is the position reached after 3..h6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bd3 Bb4 6.exd5! (6.e5 is an interesting line leading to a gambit and need some deep analysis 6...Ne4 7.oo Nxc3 8.bxc3 Bxc3 9.Rb1 Bruzon-Arencibia,La Havanne 2004, Horvath-Borgio,Zemplinska Sirava 2004) exd5 7.oo oo 8.Ne2! (for me it's "simple chess" and I don't really trust White's Ne5/h3 as in Hautot-Legky,France N1 2005) Steinitz-Pitschel,Vienne 1873 ; Blackburne-Wood,Gread Brtiain simul 1871

About 4..Nc6!?: it's Eingorn's improvment over 4..Nf6 played earlier by Bricard. 4...Nf6. If White plays 5.e5 then it's variation given by Janev-Bricard,Toulon 1999: 5...Ne4 6.Nxe4 (6.Bd3 Bb4 is the gambit given before) dxe4 and now Black has a playable game because White must loose tempi to withdraw his knight on f3.

If White plays 5.Bd3 then it's too late for Black to play Nc6, simply because of 6.e5 attacking the knight on f6. Other moves: 5..dxe4?! (give up the center) Nxe4 ; 5...c5 6.exd5 exd5 7.oo  Stavast-Van Rin,Groningue 2003 ; 5...Be7 6.oo ; 5..Bb4 Jovanovic-Kovacevic,Zadar 2003 ; Bruzon-Arencibia,La Havanne 2004 6.exd5!

I add that exd5 is maybe the right answer in the line: 4.Bd3 Nf6 (instead of Eingorn Nc6) 5.exd5! exd5 6.Nge2 Almira Schripenko-Bricard,Montpellier 1988 (Wonderer on chesspublishing forum) or 6.Nf3

Dear Dom,

I don't understand your suggestion of 4. Ktf3 Ktc6. The whole idea of 4. Bd3 Ktc6 is to hit the unprotected -d4 pawn, coaxing White into 5. Ktf3, then chasing the Bd3 with 5. ...Ktb4 so that after 6. Be2 he can continue 6. ...Ktf6 ; 7. e5 Kte4
Now with the Kt allready on -f3, surely the logical course is 4. ...Ktf6. Now you have suggested 5. Bd3 c5 ; 6. 0-0, which looks reasonable enough for Black, but what of 5. ...Bb4  ?

                                                                                        Regards,
                                                                                             Hubert

Hello Mnb&Uberdeker,

Yes, maybe Bricard's variation is more appropriate than Eingorn's variation, but naming variations is difficult ("the first player playing the move ? the first strong player playing the move ? the first player building an opening system with it ?" and so on).

I add that I had the luck to listen Bricard in a training lesson in Toulouse few years ago, about the variation. He explained the ideas and one main idea is "h6 is a waiting move". Eingorn used Bricard's idea and developped later a system with in, and specially with the Nc6 move. The idea is, if White plays an "universal system", then White will not choose immediatly between closing or opening the center (e5 or exd5), then Nf3-Bd3 are the moves. But after Bd3 then Black has Nc6 hitting the bishop on d3, and if White wants to keep his very-good bishop, then one tempo must be lost.

Maybe I repeat the analyse in NiC, I don't know (because I have not read the paper about the variation).

Now, about the sub-lines...

A) Maybe it's a matter of taste, but c6 is another pawn move and White after the exchange exd5-exd5, two tempi more for the development and I clearly prefers White in such position. The idea of Bb4 is to win the good square "e4" and to develop quickly (the same idea exists in the Wiawer-exchange without h3).

B) The two-knights's variation is one sub-variation of the French where White delays the d4 pawn move. It's useful to know it for White players playing Nf3 or wanting to avoid some variations (White can choose later between the exchange or a closed game, and avoid the Winawer);
1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 two-knights variation (Taulbut) Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.d4 c5 6.dxc5 Nc6 7.Bf4 Bxc5 8.Bd3 f6! (8...h6?! an error of a world champion, since now Black is weak on light squares and cannot play f6 easily. Gufeld-Spassky-Leningrad 1960)

C) Versus Kf6, White plays the universal system Bd3...but I admit Black can play such move. Without deep analysis, I will play with White: 5.Bd3 c5 (5...Nc6 6.e5 Nfd7 7.oo and now the idea Nb4 doesn't work 7..Nb4 8.Be2 c5 9.Nb5! a6 10.Nd6+ Bxd6 11.exd6 += ; 5...dxe4 is a kind of Rubinstein with the useless(?) move h6) 6.oo.

If 4...Nc6!? 5.e5 then Black has no immediate counterplay but an easy and quick development for his pieces: Bb4-Nge7-oo. The attack against the space advantage is done later with f6 or Ng6-Nce7

E)  After 6.Qxg7 Rg8 (6...Rh7 7.Qg3 dxe4 8.Bf4) 7.Qxh6 Nxe4 8.Ne2 and I don't see Black counterplay in the center, and White now has a dangerous h pawn in the future.

F) In some lines in the Rubinstein, Black can exchange more pieces because White has played Bg5. Here, the pawn move a3 has been played, and White can keep his space advantage or control: 4..dxe4 5.Nxe4 Nf6 6.Bd3 Nxe4 7.Bxe4 Nd7 8.Nf3 Nf6 9.Bd3 c5 10.Be3 or (Fort Knox's variation) 6...Bd7  7.Nf3  Bc6 8.Qe2 Bxe4 9.Bxe4 Qxe4 10.c6 oo

A : The Q Bishop has much more scope than in many other variations of the French. And here it is unopposed.
I suppose 10. Qe2+ should be met by 10. ...Be6 and 11. Qe5 c6

Dear Dom,

Thanks for your help. Your variations are interesting. However there are a few points which I haven't quite understood or on which I disagree :

line A) 5. Bf4 Bb4 looks a bit illogical, since the idea of 4. ed in the Winaver is precisely to demonstrate that the Bishop is misplaced on -b4 (although Black should manage to equalise without too much difficulty there). If 6. Ktb5 needs to be prevented, 5. ...c6 is probably better.

line B) What's the Two Knights' variation?

line C) 4. ...Ktf6 is the consistent move, taking advantage of White's Ktf3. 4. ...Ktc6 is met simply by 5. e5 and Black has no counterplay

line E) Again ...Ktc6 achieves little and you end up playing a Rubinstein where Be3 is probably worth more than ...h6. You imply that 4. ...Bb4 is met strongly by 5. Qg4, but 5. ...Ktf6 ;
6. Qxg7 Rg8 ; 7. Qxh6 Ktxe4 looks good for Black to me. What was your idea?

line F) Here however, the Rubinstein option 4. ...de is more attractive, since ...h6 is useful in preventing a  future Bg5 or Ktg5 and a3 serves no real purpose.

I don't think Grigoriants-Cosma is so thankless for Black. That bishop pair may come in handy at some point.

                                                                     Regards,
                                                                           UD

P.S. You're right MNb, 3. ...h6 was first played by French IM Bricard, but Eingorn's treatment is generally more dynamic and he's had success with it rather a high level.

I suppose Grigoriants--Cosma might be OK for Black but doesn't it all look a bit thankless for him? Similarly with, in this line, 10 Qe2 which looks to win a pawn, albeit messily. Add Uberdeker's own 6 0-0!? and I'm not enthused about 3 ...h6 4 Bd3 Nc6 and would prefer to try 4 ...Bb4. But I guess this might be a question of taste ...

The idea crossed my mind, because I compared it to the Winckelmann-Reimer Gambit, which had some popularity in the past: 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 and here c5! is almost a refutation.
After 3.Nc3 h6 4.Be3 Bb4 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 dxe4 7.f3 it is clear, that exf3? is almost a blunder. Black's castling will be punished with Bxh6! and the extra move Be3 is very useful. So indeed moves like Nd7 and b6 will probably be critical.
If I remember a little of that W-R Gambit, White will continue with something like 7...Nd7 8.Nh3 Ngf6 9.fxe4 Nxe4 10.Qf3 Nxc3 11.Qg3. Again in such variations the extra move Be3 has merit, while I am not sure about Black's h6.

Dear MNb,

Didn't mean to be rude. Just expressing my first feeling when reading your post. Since the poor Eingorn Variation is coming under simultaneous cross-fire in this thread, and I'm the only one to defend it, I can't treat all lines at once.
Your suggestion is interesting, and certainly much stronger than the BDG. But my gut feeling is that you still don't have enough for the pawn. You are right, serious analysis is required here. It would be nice if someone could help me with the Black side!

                                                                                               Regards,
                                                                                                   Hubert

[quote author=Willempie link=1142611685/0#11 date=1143200111]
PS Nimzo proposed Qg4 in the advance, e4 e6 d4 d5 e5 c5 Qg4, so it cant be that bad against h6 ;)[/quote]

Dear Willempie

It is precisely because 4.Qg4 "the Overprotection Variation" was Nimzo's brainchild that I made my previous comment. His idea was Ktgf3-e1-d3 and Ktbd2-d3.

                                                 Regards,
                                                   Hubert

6. Ktf3 Qb6. The constant parallels with the Steinitz are meaningless. You consider the knight to be better placed on -d7 where it contributes nothing to the struggle for the centre and I think the knight is better off on the -e7/-f5 track. But let's imagine for a second that we agree that these squares are equally good. Then Black is a tempo up (I'm not counting ...h6 of course) in the fight for central control.

Dear Willempie,

  If only things were that simple! Your Ktc3 is misplaced after 4. ...c5. If 5. f4 Bd7 ; 6. Ktce2 Bb5 ; 7. c3 Ktc6 ; 8. Ktf3 Qb6 your centre is under considerable strain. If 5. Qg4 I'm sure Nimzowitsch would agree that your Queen Knight is on the wrong track. it should be looking to overprotect -e5!

                                                                  Regards,
                                                                      Hubert

MNb wrote on 03/24/06 at 01:28:04:


Oh my god! Is this Blackmar-Diemer thing going to follow me wherever I go?!

6 Bf4 has been tried twice (see ChessLive), and in both cases Black went down.

On a dead-quick butcher's I don't like Black's position after 6 0-0 either! (But it appears not to have been played.)

4 Be3!? might be a little annoying. It's not the move white most wants to play but it does develop something and doesn't seem to give black anything to bite on unlike 4 Bd3/Nf3.

At least 4 .. de is likely to end up a tempo or two down on a known line in the Burn variation & 4 .. Nf6 5 e5 etc is surely not very clever. The article gives 4 .. Bb4 but I'd be worried that after 5 e5 c5 and then things like 6 Qg4/dxc5 should work much better than in the Winaver proper.

A couple of years ago NIC published as SOS article on the highly interesting variation 1. e4 e6 ; 2. d4 d5 ; 3. Ktc3 h6.
Black's idea is basically to tell White he's in zugzwang!
Afew samples :
-4. Bd3 Ktc6 ; 5. Ktf3 (5. Be3 is maybe worth looking into) Ktb4 ; 6. Be2 Ktf6
-4. Ktf3 Ktf6 ; 5. Bd3 (5. e5 Kte4) and now practice has seen 5. ...de?! and 5. ...Ktc6?! while Eingorn has recommended 5. ...c5!?. But the move that springs to my mind is 5. ...Bb4 and seems to hold up to analysis. Has anyone seen this played, or may it be dubbed the Uberdeker Variation?
Or in general, does anyone know how 3. ...h6 has been faring lately in practice?
Incidentaly, the article also covered the line 3; Ktd2 h6. But I don't think this is as happy a choice, since the ...h6 tempo serves no prophylactic purpose. In my opinion, better waiting moves are 3. ...a6 and 3. ...Be7

                                                                   Looking forward to your replys,
                                                                                               Hubert