i believe the win that today Ivantsuk socred against Topalov from MTel Masters tournament at Sofia, may give an answer to the first who asked , if the classical variation is dynamic.
1) Topalov,V (2767) - Ivanchuk,V (2740) [C11]
4th M-Tel Masters Sofia BUL (2), 09.05.2008

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 a6 8.a3 cxd4 9.Nxd4 Bc5 10.Be2 0-0 11.Qd2 Qc7 12.Bf3 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 Nb6 14.Ne2 Bxd4 15.Qxd4 Bd7 16.b3 Bb5 17.Nc3 Rfc8 18.Nxb5 axb5 19.Be2 Nd7 20.Ra2 Nb8 21.0-0 Nc6 22.Qd2 Qb6+ 23.Kh1 Qa5 24.Qxa5 Rxa5 25.Raa1 Rca8 26.Rad1 Rxa3 27.Bxb5 Nb4 28.c4 R8a5 29.f5 exf5 30.g4 Rxb3 31.gxf5 Re3 32.Rb1 Nd3 33.e6 d4 34.Be8 Nc5 35.Bxf7+ Kf8 36.f6 gxf6 37.Rxf6 Ke7 38.Rh6 d3 39.Rxh7 d2 40.Rg1 Re1 41.Bh5+ Kxe6 42.Rhg7 Ne4 43.R7g6+ Ke5 0-1

I lost an exchange French as Black. 


(If there was an embarrassed Charlie Brown emoticon, I would have used it.)

The game appears in the French Exchange thread.

I don't know, but I have a certain fondness for 4...Nf6 5. Nc3 Be7 and if 6. Bd3 Nc6, with the idea 7. Nge2?! Nb4.  7. cd Nxd5 (7...Nb4!?) 8. Nge2 (8. Nf3 looks like a tempo-up Petroff for Black) produces a pretty nice-looking IQP position for Black.

True, there is 6. Nf3, but I would think Black again would have a good chance to reach a sort of improved Petroff IQP, and I don't know how he could expect better winning chances than from such a position.  Miezis-Short, Euro Team Ch 2001 looks nice, for example.  (GM Miezis is one of the main exponents of this line for White.)  

I'm going to be facing a master in a standard game soon as Black.  I know that he plays both the Classical (with Bxe7) and the Exchange (with c4).  From what I can tell, he scores mostly draws in the Exchange but his games in the Classical are much more decisive (for both sides).

I believe that this is strong evidence that the Classical French is quite dynamic.  At least it's more dynamic than the Exchange Variation.

I have heard both GM Alex Fishbein and IM Michael Mulyar claim that the French Exchange with an early c4 is anything but drawish and that White has excellent chances to win.

Here's my question:
What is Black's best way to play for winning chances (not necessarily a theoretical advantage) after:

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ed5 ed5 4.c4?

I really think I can beat this player, but I will need to play actively.  He's probably already read his Watson.  I play him on Monday, February 4th.

You can see the game here with some comments in Swedish It's the latest entry (if not you'll find it at January 16th 2008)

http://larsgrahn.blogspot.com/

It's funny how timing is everything.  Almost a year ago, I asked about 6...Nc6 (after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.h4) in the hopes of finding some interesting theory.  Everyone who bothered to respond said it was just plain bad and not worth looking at. 

This idea has been played by Morozevich and now a 13 year old prodigy.  Perhaps we can have a discussion of the merits of this move?

Markovich,

I spent several months on precisely your question around the time I first signed up at Chesspublishing.  I think the Steinitz is very strong and viable for Black, but I opted for the MacCutcheon against 4.Bg5.  I felt that 4...Be7 was a little passive for Black, and probably doesn't yield the kind of game you're looking for.  I think Black runs into some trouble against the Chatard-Alekhine Attack (see other threads on this)...

@Bibs,

Thanks for providing the links.

@all,

I sometimes get confused even after six moves as to which line is being discussed.  Please let the readers know what the first moves are in your sequence!  Thanks. 

Indeed, the German grandmaster Schmittdiel used to play 7...a6, followed right away by ...b5, ...b4 and ...a5.  That was mentioned rather favorably in Lev Psakhis's old book on the French (i.e. before he broke it up into several volumes), but I couldn't say what its current theoretical status is.

Markovich wrote on 11/13/07 at 16:07:01:


Every position can stand a healthy weakness ...

I dont' face the too many players over 2300 FIDE, so my opinion is based on play against NMs and FMs mostly.  I have found that I can score quite well against the Steinitz as Black, but I usually have to suffer through an uncomfortable defense for quite a while before my game starts looking ok. 

I guess I'm probably stronger at defending long-term threats than the immediate threats one has to deal with in lines such as the Alekhin-Chatard.  It's either that or the Alekhin-Chatard is just better for White than the Steinitz.  I get the impression from GM practice that Black concurs most of the time and after 4.Bg5 plays 4...de4 most often to avoid the sort of crush that Korchnoi suffered against Kasparov a few years ago in the A-C.

winawer77 wrote on 11/02/07 at 11:57:40:



My experiences are similar to yours. I think the MacCutcheon is really the only way for me to play against 4. Bg5. But recently I lost miserably to a FM in a few rapid games starting with 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 6. Be3 Ne4 7. Qg4 g6 8. a3 Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 Nxc3 10. Bd3 Nc6 11. h4 Ne7 12. h5 g5 13. Ne2! (much better than 13. f3 which is unclear) where after 13.. Nxe2 14. Qxe2 I think Black is slightly worse.

Black is up a pawn, but ironically, the more pieces Black exchanges, the easier for White to use the open b file or exploit Black's kingside weaknesses. Later I found out from the database that Nepomniatchi also lost to Najer in this line (Najer-Nepomniatchi Moscow 2006), but he was willing to repeat it in Spoelman-Nepomniatchi Corus 2007 so who knows. This was also recommended by Watson for White in Dangerous Weapons.

Isn't this one of the main lines against the classical. I though black here pretty much has a draw. Not very Dynamic, lol. Is there something better? On Ziegler's DVD, he gives a line what black is holding. Then if I am right, I think black can sack a pawn, but that is supposed to be drawish (but black has some play). I am not an expert here, is there maybe an earlier move black can play not to go into this variation.

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. Bxe7 Qxe7 7. f4 O-O 8.
Nf3 c5 9. dxc5 Nc6 10. Bd3 f6 11. exf6 Qxf6 12. g3 Nxc5 13. O-O

Dismissive was probably too strong a word, I just wanted to explore why the concensus (apparently) was different from my own impressions. Thanks for the clarification, Paddy. Surely strong GMs will continue to play both 4.e5 and 4.Bg5, I don't expect this issue to be resolved any time soon.

P.S. 4...dxe4 may be a theoretical concession, but in recent practice Black has some of the most respectable scores in the Nc3-French (and indeed of all defences to 1.e4) with the lines 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Bxf6 gxf6 and 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Nbd7 6.Nf3 h6, a score that remains at 44-47% even if one looks only at titled games. Of course, part of this may be explained by white players getting bored, in particular with the latter line...

Quote:


I assume you mean 17...Bc6, that's the only sensible bishop move I could find in this position   I will have to look at this. I haven't really studied the cxd4 lines since I mainly tried to make 7...a6 8.Qd2 b5 work, a la Morozevich, Kiriakov et al. But there after 9.a3 White's position always seemed easier to play. Thanks for the input!

I don't really understand why people here are so dismissive of White's chances for advantage after 4.e5. It seems to me that in practice white is still doing well, in particular with the lines 4...Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bc5 9.Qd2 0-0 10.0-0-0 a6 11.Nb3! and 7...a6 8.Qd2 b5 9.a3! (which incidentally were the basis of the white repertoire in OFWATA 6 by Khalifman). Black is currently doing quite OK with 7...Be7!?, but that is still unexplored and who knows when the tide will turn?

In my brief period as a Classical French player a couple of years ago, I enjoyed several wins against 4.Bg5 with the dynamic gxf6-Burn, and considered the McCutcheon a nice potential backup line. But then everyone started playing 4.e5 and in frustration I switched back to the Winawer...  So it seems I had the opposite problem from everyone else!?

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 10/31/07 at 06:55:26:


I'm not sure which drawing line you're referring to, but I've been analyzing 7.Bd3 with Rybka, and I don't think it's necessarily drawish. After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.Bd3 my main source gives 7...a6 as his main line, and after the moves: 8.Qg4 f5 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.Qh4, I like 10.Nc6.  For instance, after the moves 11.Nf3 Bd7 12.Bg6 Kd8, in many lines I've been looking at black can safely walk his king over to h7 and connect rooks; I have yet to find a variation in this line where I don't think black is okay.

I also think that by the nature of the pawn structure (the e5 pawn chain) the opening would tend to be relatively non-drawish. For instance, in many lines in the open games the pawn structure is more symmetrical, hence having more drawish tendencies. As well, I would think the Burn-type pawn structure which is seen in many lines of the semi-open games would tend to given fewer winning chances than those with the e5 pawn chain in the french - one reason being that if black gets the e5 pawn break in (which black sometimes does in the Burn) then the pawn structure would be symmetrical (albeit symmetrical along the diagonals). 

For example, take the game Situru-Hubner (1996) that started: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.h4 c5 7.Bxe7 Kxe7 8.Qxg5 Nc6 9.Qg5 Kf8 10.Qxd8 Nxd8 11.f4 b6 12.Nf3 Nc6 13.0-0-0 Ke7. Even though the queens are off and a couple of my sources says the position is equal, there still seems to me to be winning chances for both sides here due to the imbalance in the pawn structure (and black ended up winning this game).

Also, from my personal experience (I've been rated around 2000 for quite awhile) I've generally had good winning chances in my games with 4...Be7.

I have seen playing a line by the GM Moskalenko in the Al-Ch Attack with good results:

4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nd7 6.h4 Bg5 7.hg g6!? and black castles on the king's side. It seems interesting that this can be played without fearing a strong king's side assault on the h file.

Well..., that's only an idea

Markovich wrote on 10/30/07 at 19:42:42:


I find it very strange that 4 e5 is all the rage, since not only is it open to the theoretical objection that Black retains his better bishop but you can argue that it is not even the most practical choice, since Black has a wide choice of playable systems.

No, 4 Bg5 just HAS to be the real test of 3...Nf6. Aftyer that it the choice is a stylistic one for Black, but he is a bit worse in every case.

4...Bb4 ends up exchanging Black's better bishop for a knight, but he gets to inflict some damage, as in the Winawer, and in some lines gets to exchange White's potentially dangerous (since now unopposed) dark squared bishop. It is a messy, fighting choice but not everyone's cup of tea. Also it has become very concrete and theoretical, and different White set-ups can require very different responses from Black - in other words there's a lot to learn, both concretely and positionally.

4...Be7 5 e5 means that Black's better bishop will be exchanged, but this time for a bishop rather than a knight.

Then Tartakower's 5...Ne4 is interesting but almost certainly bad, yet maybe useful as an occasional surprise. In modern times Bonin has played some interesting games with it.

5...Ng8 is playable but rather passive.

5...Nfd7 is best, but there is no proven equaliser against 6 h4 and everything is now a bit scary for Black. 6...c5 might be best, but recently White has been getting good results by allowing his centre to be dismantled, castling queenside and attacking down the centre files and on the kingside; although Black's position is strategically promising (centre pawns) it can be hard to coordinate with the king stuck in the middle or on f8. At least, though, it's a game. On his very interesting DVD, Ziegler recommends the calm 6...0-0 but that takes really strong nerves and good preparation, and may yet be proved bad anyway. Morozevich has experimented with Guimard-like 6...Nc6. Everything else is probably just plain bad. But in this materialistic Fritz age, you don't get to meet 6 h4 very often.

6 Bxe7 Qxe7 is a bit better for White, since he has more space and Black has lost his good bishop, but in return Black is a bit less cramped after the exchange of bishops and can create dynamic play with the ...c5 and ...f6 breaks; his two main strategic objectives in these lines are a) to mobilize his centre pawns and b) free the bad bishop and even try to transform it from ugly duckling to swan. It's a fighting defence with lots of strategic content and practical counter-chances. It is no accident that in the past aggressive players such as Spielmann and Lilienthal used to play the Classical. You can learn a lot from their games, plus from other old masters such as Maroczy, and later Stahlberg and Yanofsky (the Canadian one). The main modern specialists are Gleizerov, Ulibin and Riazantsev, but such greats as Korchnoi, Morozevich, Short and Seirawan have contributed interesting ideas and model games. Play tends to be very thematic and a specialist should get decent results with Black once "played in". This brings me to an important point - you have to play the French as your main weapon or not at all - it is notable that players who just occasionally dabble in the French tend to get bad results with it - even Tal found that!

4...dxe4 preserves the important dark-squared bishop, but at quite a high cost in space and mobility. It's "unfrench" in feel, but is quite solid and might suit some people, particularly refugees from the 4...Nd7 Caro Kann.

3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5! is THE problem.

After 4... dxe4 and 4... Be7, the onus is on Black to know some specific lines, as White's position is easier to play on general principles, therefore the MacCutcheon is the best practical try as White must also demonstrate sophistication and finesses. At this moment, I feel a well-booked White can cause some difficulties after 6. Be3 and 6. Bc1, but Black is not much worse than in the main lines of the Breyer/Zaitsev Ruy Lopez, which as you will know, has such pedigree.

If both sides know their theory after 4. Bg5 equally well (that's a big IF really), I must admit Black doesn't have good winning chances against an equal or stronger opponent (compared to the Winawer or Najdorf), but i think Black retains good chances to win if White is say, >100 elo weaker.

Does anyone think that the Classical French, and I'm not talking about the Burn, is suffiently dynamic to be played for a win?  I think that is unmistakbly true of Black's side of the Steinitz Variation, but I am less certain after 4.Bg5 Be7.  Relatedly, how are Black's chances against the Alekhine-Chatard?

I am by no means familiar with the theory of the Classical, rather ignorant in fact.  I'm just seeking the opinion of those with more experience than I.  But I would like to broaden my understanding of the game before these atoms that constitute me find a different use in the Totality of Things.