kalle99 wrote on 12/09/07 at 12:58:22:


Let me get that straight:
a) You dislike 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 de4: because of the arising positional play
b) You like the Advance Variation (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5) because of the arising tactical play

Why don't you just play the Advance Variation then?
You avoid the variation you dislike the most and get, what you call, "interesting play". 

And well, don't go all crazy about "bad positional games", you have to accept that there are people who like other parts of chess than you do.
Not everyone is in wild sacrificing, other people like to win seemingly drawish positions since this shows superiority as well.

What would you say to someone who calls you an "immature frenzied boy", because you dont understand the beauties of positional play and just want tactical games? Maybe he even says "1.e4 is not real chess,   sac, sac, mate has nothing to do with chess, where you have to be very cool and thoughtful" or something like that. If you answer "thats complete BS" then consider what you said in this thread...

Willempie wrote on 12/09/07 at 11:43:21:



"-It is as dynamic as the French advance structures."  WRONG! First of all !! The advance variation is whites choice !! Not blacks! I am talking about a passive black way to play the french. 

Even in the advance variation the game can become VERY sharp with wild attacking games.
And once black is out of the "box" and the light squared bishop comes to life the position can become VERY dynamic. You are not close to that in the 3...dxe4 variation.  And you talk about tactical. If you look at it that way it will be difficult to find ANY position in chess that does NOT contain tactics. Of course some endgame can become fairly tactical but in other position they are MORE or MUCH MORE tactics.

And you mentioned that GM use this line. Well they are in a different position. A half point could mean 100 000 $ on a specific occasion for them. 

So I see it that they just use it to play with  highest safety. The absolut top does NOT use Rubinstein french regulary . Not one singel player !!

I dont count Burn variation to  3...dxe4. In the burn variation you have gxf6 systems which is rather dynamic and unclear positions often arise.

Your last remark I really dont get. How is deliberately avoiding variations helping your chess?

Well You have a choice to take up another opening (or branch of the french) that develops your game BETTER than the dry  3...dxe4. 


Please compare The dry french 3..dxe4 with the Pirc (with my last post in context).


And in my last post I compared this boring opening with for (example ) the Pirc defense. I didnt get a reaction of that. 

In pirc you are "trained" in your games to :

Handle 

* Ruy Lopez positions

* Sicilian positions

* Kings Indian positions

* And EVEN french positions !!! 

* You have many different endgames to play also.


Try to write a similair list from the dry 3...dxe4 french.

And in my last post I compared this boring opening with for (example ) the Pirc defense. I didnt get a reaction of that. 


Silence = You dont have any argument ?

What do you say about it ?


p.s (Its good to hear that you say that the dry  3..dxe4 "is a bit passive". Thanks! )

Apart from Willempie's comments I would like to add:

White often attacks and sacrifices material, which of course involves tactical play. Some examples:
Timman-Hubner 1-0, 2006 (White sacs bishop for decisive attack)
Motylev-Roiz 1-0, 2005 (White sacs bishop for strong attack)
Kotronias-Franchini 1-0, 2005 (300 rating points difference here, but shows that the Fort Knox not is a guaranteed draw)

On the other hand, this also leads to possibilities for Black to win games by defending well.

Do you mean you are upset because your opponents play an opening where they don't develop as chess players? That's unusual, I have never thought that way.

Btw, my latest game as White against 3.-,dxe4 started as follows:
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ Qxf6 6.Nf3 h6 7.Bb5+ Bd7 8.Qe2 a6 9.Bc4 (9.Bxd7+ is probably better) 9.-,Nc6 10.d5!? (Black has no problems after 10.c3 Bd6 followed by e5) 10.-,Bb4+! 11.c3 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 Qxc3+ 13.Qd2 and I have at least succeded in creating a complicated position against a draw-lusting lower rated opponent! Now 13.-,Qxc4 is best, with unclear play, instead 13.-,Qxa1 followed.

Come on guys!! 

What I wrote was :

First of all..Have you really played someone who knows how to play against this system ?

Second I didnt see anything in your reply telling me where the universlism is in this french 3..dxe4 opening. 

* In this opening you dont get too many different kind of endgames. Very many are the same.

* The game doesnt get very tactical.

* Its not dynamic.

* Its rather passive. When white get a space advantage wich he can hold for a long time if he so wishes. Black is passive and doesnt have much more counterplay than the -c5 push. A push that white is just sitting and waiting for.

*Compare this to other french setups. Where black is very active once he has got out of whites grip. You can get offensive king side attacks as well as a nice attack on the queenside. In those french set ups you will be able to play more different endgames (wich will make you a better player as a whole).

By chosing a different french set up you will be a better player. Not only that you will have much more fun when playing chess also !!

Can it be better ?

Come on and say where I am wrong (statement above).

The point is that I am right when saying that this opening is NOT a "universal opening" .

It means it leads to passive games. Not dynamic. Very defensive game. Just sitting and waiting for a mistake (with this opening you cant hardly count on pushing or pressing for the win).

A game you can play with very limited fantasy. Your main goal in this opening is to exchange exchange exchange exchange . Destroy destroy destroy everything white can do.  And play -c5.  

An opening which do not develop your game as a whole compared to many other black openings. Compare it to Pirc for instance. When playing Pirc you will learn to handle Ruy Lopez type of positions,Sicilian type of position,Kings Indian type of positons, and EVEN french type of positions!!! (1.e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. f3 d5 4. e5 Ng8).
In the Pirc you also get less space BUT you have a lot more dynamic counterplay AND you get some "universal training" at the same time. You will play different type of endgames. Perhaps french 3..dxe4 loses less then the Pirc...or have better statistics. But it does NOT mean that the opening is better in developing your chess skill.

In a must win game I am sure most people would play something else than the french with 3...dxe4.

This is my arguments. If someone (HGman) just answer  me "Albatross" then I suspect that I am not proven wrong.

And I will also stop to use a "macho language". That makes this debate far too easy for you. You can focus on HOW I say things not WHAT I say.

*sigh*  

I can't quite remember specific examples but I feel very confident in saying that I have read and heard openings like the dxe4 French or the Colle or the Caro-Kann called openings for "old men."   Is that offensive too?  And if not, why not?   Those were meant to be rhetorical quesions so no answers are really necessary.  

And the thing he wrote about a sexual fetish said or implied nothing about homosexuals or homosexuality.   He was making a joke or an attempt at one.  Not funny, I agree.   But hardly insulting or offensive.   

I guess we have some significantly different understandings in this thread of what is offensive.   Disagreement among chess players, go figure. 

Kalle: I hope your children won't turn out gay. 

(if you ever grow up and have children that is)

Same goes to Prince-Nez. Then you will understand the need for political correctness to women, senior citizens, and other minorities. 

I'm with HgMan here, because I think the initial reference to old women was derogatory in that they somehow didn't/couldn't measure up to real men by playing "weeny" chess. 3...dxe4 is "sickening" chess and a "sexual perversion"?! give me a break. 

There *are* differences between men and women, but the way Kalle expressed it was plainly intended to be derogatory. 

Anyway all you guys post interesting stuff. Lets keep the forum going without all these nasty comments

Prince-Nez wrote on 12/09/07 at 03:10:59:


No, I suppose you wouldn't.  It's a cozy little insular world you live in, isn't it?   

This has nothing to do with chess, but I think the basic principles of an open forum dictate that an unspoken decorum should be adopted in order to keep the discourse open and inclusive, else we relegate any good theoretical discussions on chess to a bunch of schoolyard gibberish and taunting.

I used some big words there, Nose, so let me know if I need to translate anything.  Sorry for being the thought-police, but if you want to crawl out of your hole from time to time, it's best not to rub other folks the wrong way.  Can we please stick to chess?

MNb was right: this is the biggest waste of a thread.  Maybe Castlerock can delete the whole thing if we're just going to rant about sexual content.  I don't see how it advances any chessic discussion...

kalle:  I've played just about everything under the sun, son. Even Methuseluh thinks I'm old.  You ain't got nothin new to spew, gnu.


Here is your word of the day:  Tact.


Good luck in your impending adulthood, whenever it arrives.  Do you have the tracking number?

TTFN.