Seriously, stick with 3.Nc3

I have been playing the French for years and nothing hits the French as hard as 3.Nc3 - its the only move that puts pressure on Black's position, limiting his reply to either 3...Bb4 or 3...Nf6 and the concessions inherent with either move (although 3...Nc6 as mentioned in Watson's Dangerous Weapons book, intrigues me).

Many players play the Two Knights, KIA, Wing Gambit etc in order to avoid the complications of 3.Nc3 - but as you already play this, there is no need to go back. From an experienced French player, 3.Nc3 is the move I least like to face.

As Kasparov once said '3Nd2 is good enough to win, but 3Nc3 is the best move'

I do not play Bg5 in the classical french, because of the Mc Cutcheon Bb4 variation,
I just do not like to face it, I don't know what to attack if black just plays the Mc Cutcheon with Kf8.
Maybe I could play exd after Bb4, but I really do not know, I believe black is already comfortable after Bb4 Ng-e2.

I often analyze my french games with an engine, black is very often slightly better =+,
but it is still difficult to play, but =+, but in practice the french players often can't convert this and end up worse in the late middlegame nevertheless ... chess is just a difficult game

I know of 2 kasparov losses in the french, against invanchuk and against radjabov,
in both of these games, kasparov had no kingside attack, it was just a positional struggle,
against ivanchuk he got overrun on queenside ... these are good examples for white getting no attack and losing his position quite fast ... I can be glad, that the players on amateur level are often defensive players that have problems to convert their opening advantage ...

I don't think there is another opening for black where he gets so fast an advantage against white.

Tbh. I think 1.e4 is a bit incorrect, because on the greatest level of truth, it just wrong to attack on the king, because the defense is always one piece up, that is the king ... 
it is far more logically to play on queenside, get space advantage and win a pawn ... 
because black is not a piece up on queenside ... but I chose 1.e4 nevertheless because on my level greatest level of truth is not that important and 1.e4 gives me more fun

There's been a quiet resurgence lately in the MacCutcheon (1.e4 d5 2.e6 d4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4!?).  Black's been scoring reasonably well with this, so maybe White is better off going into the French Steinitz (4.e5) for now.   

I agree with Willempie that 3.Nc3 is far more critical than KIA play.  I really don't understand any reference to the 2-Knights that is mentioned as the title of this thread.

I play e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3

After Bb4 e5 and then c5 or Ne7 I play Bd2, 
I'm not so sure if this line is really good, but so far I got winning positions (that I managed to lose in time trouble) against my opponents ... but I think they were both a bit suprised by this move and don't know it well ... I'm not so sure if the Bd2 line is still a good line against a prepared opponent ...
I still have to investigate into this line if it really can give me a good game,
otherwise I will go for the mainline in winawer with Qg4.
The other variation is the classical, where I play e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Nf6 e5 Nf6-d7 f4,

In all these french lines black gets good play at queenside and I do not really know what to come up with on kingside. In the classical variation one adversary just continued with c5, Nc6, a6, b5 ... I played dxc5 after b5 and should have continued with Nd4 ... I now looked up the khalifmann book on the french and he suggests a3 in this variation ... 

What really comes to my mind, on the amateur level in the Nc3 lines, black can just easily develop according to his opening system, and you as white have to come up with very precise moves, or will just be rolled on queenside ... also in the winawer mainline, I am really not sure if Qg4 is really sound ... 
for me the Queen is getting out too early and has nothing to attack ... just like in the grandprix attack where f4 is played too early ... where black has enough time to prepare for the threats of this move, 
and later on it is a weakness, the queen on g4 can also get attacked by developing moves from black ...
that is why I still want to see how how 5. Bd2 performs, to me this move is just more natural and gives me also more natural positions that are still complicated ... but the problem is that it may be bad against a prepared player, because it is theoretically unsound ... 

I also see gm games where white just loses very fast in the french ...
I don't see this in any other opening but the french ...
maybe I should just play the exchange ... the french player wants to annoy me, so I annoy him too ...
openings like the french really make me think if 1.e4 just gives the advantage away ...
I am not so sure if a french player can really be proud of his wins in the Nc3 line,
they always should have in mind I could just have played 3.exd5 ...

Maybe the best way to meet the french is 1.d4.

Quote:

If I knew for certain that half my opponents would play these lines, the French would be back as my main weapon. 3.Nc3 (and maybe 3.Nd2 and 3.e5) are much better, so I concur with JEH.
Maybe an idea to post the variations which give you trouble. There are lot of Frenchplayers around who can prolly suggest an idea or two.

Quote:


Stick with Nc3 and get good with it. You don't need a 2nd system.

Hello,

currenly I play Nc3, but I am thinking on taking up a 2nd system against the french,
what do you consider more unpleasant, KIA or 2 knights?
In the database I found by far more games in the KIA than the 2-knights, so I guess common consensus is,
that it is better. Also I have attacking with e4 and a dvoretzky book lying around where there is some theory on KIA. I know the KIA is not the best choice, but maybe Nc3 is not the best choice neither against a superb booked up opponent, and it can't be so bad if I find so many GM games on it ...
is it worth the effort to investigate in the 2 knights by my own or should I play the KIA?
btw, I am rated 2085, I face opponents up 2300.