@yzfool

Regarding the black side of the english.. 

I've switched from the 4 Knights approach + Bb4 + Nimzo Ideas to a close relative of this, somewhat more aggresive..

I now play 1.c4 e5, 2.nc3 nc6, 3.g3/Nf3 f5 which leads to variations where black has nimzo ideas (Bxc3,d6) but also sicilian grand-prix attack colour reversed ideas, again playing Bb4 and exchanging on c3 at the correct moment and also Qe8,Qh5,f4,Bh3 stuff if white allows it..

I wholeheartedly recommend IM Bill Paschall's Chesslecture.com material titled "A complete system against the english for Black" which is based on 3...f5

Thanks everybody, this really expedited my ten year process of elimination.  I have explored all your suggestions and taken your criticisms into account and have concluded that I will go with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 heading for the NID or QID (most of you) or 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 (MNb). 1...e5 against 1.c4 (again, most of you) and 1...e6 against 1.Nf3 (by inference).

Stigma wrote on 05/21/08 at 11:19:39:


A insightful exchange.  I agree that opening preparation is of limited value until 2100+ at the earliest. That instead, you need middle game understanding.  The French is a middlegame opening. The observation that the French may be unique in this regard and that the French isn't a causal defense among GMs, was very interesting. If true, it hints that what I am looking for in other openings may be a chimera. Earlier in this thread, there was a suggestion that what I am aiming for would stifle my chess understanding, even if achieved.  These criticism is only valid if you assume I am looking to play the same way with White. The difficulty I am having against the Closed Games should assure you that I will be playing 1.d4 main lines when I will giving lessons rather than taking them.  You two have given me food for thought; lessons I appreciate.

[/quote]

If I were in this situation, I guess I would do some research on the repertoires of strong, consistent French "heroes", past and present:
e.g. 
The Armenians (Vaganian, Lputian, Akobian (sic) ...)
The Germans (Uhlmann, Knaak, Luther, Kindermann...)
The Russians (?) Ulibin, Eingorn, Gleizerov, Moskalenko.

I'm sure forum readers can supply other names.

By the way, I read somewhere that Armenian juniors are coached to play the Tarrasch QGD for a while and then move on (look for instance at the repertoire of Varuzhan Akobian). [/quote]

This was suggested before. French players apparently have the same issue as me since there is no consistency to their closed games as individuals.  However, I will look to see if there is consistency within the Armenian, German, and Russian "schools".  However, when I say Tarrasch my echo says Rubinstein. I'll look to see if the Armenian where able to become masters on a diet of IQPs against that formation.  Thanks for this advice, I am firing up the database now.

Chevalier wrote on 05/25/08 at 05:28:04:


I understand most openings.  In fact I can tell you what is "wrong" with most defenses to 1.d4.  So much so that I have decided to accept the deficiencies of any reply to 1.d4 and seek a French-like reply about which  I could become just as sentimental.  The French features a strategy that revolves around no more than three squares, and usually only two so you always have an idea of where the pieces should go.  I can play the French without studying theory and win.  I can then look up the opening to find where I could have improved.  That is a tremendous advantage, but there appears to be no counterpart in the Closed Games.  Where are the "three square strategies" for Black?

Another factor that could separate players of different levels is experience, although there are many different types of experience (many more blitz games; more classical games; more correspondence games, etc). Personally I think the understanding and knowledge of openings is a more important factor, especially since this is precisely what experience in an opening variation improves.

trandism wrote on 05/19/08 at 18:35:48:


Welll, there are a couple of things that I think are relevant.

First, you might feel that GMs are a breed apart, especially when you get hammered by them in an Open, but it is worth remembering that every GM was once a weak player trying to improve.

Second, the French defence has many unusual features and is something of an acquired taste. Thus GM French defence players tend to be specialists. (I don't know of many GMs who play the French only as an occasional weapon.) Also they tend to have played it a long time as their main or even exclusive defence to 1 e4, often since they were juniors. So I suggest it can be quite instructive as well as interesting to look at their games in a good database and see how their repertoires, tastes and understanding have evolved.

For example, against 1 d4, you can look to see if they seek closed positions, roughly (and I mean roughly) similar to the French, such as the Stonewall Dutch (Botvinnik, Gleizerov, Ulibin, Moskalenko...) or perhaps the King's Indian (Uhlmann).

Or do they seek a complete contrast from the French, such as the Tarrasch QGD (many of the Armenians), or perhaps something in between these extremes ( e.g. Vaganian and Lputian now generally play the QGD).

Finally, until a player develops his own chess style and "personality", it can be very useful to have a chess role model, whose openings you imitate and study. Many coaches have recommended this, and I don't think they are wrong. Having a role model can motivate you to study and at the same time reduces the amount that you have to study. It can also help prevent you from flitting from one unsatisfactory opening to another, as many on this forum seem to have done (including me  ).

All the above refers to players who are beyond the beginner stage, who have ideally gone through a stage of playing lots of open games and gambits to develop their tactical skills, and who are now trying to develop a "serious" repertoire, one in which it is worth investing time, effort and money.

trandism wrote on 05/20/08 at 14:37:04:


I see no reason why you can't do both #1 and #2. I don't think anyone on this forum is a bigger opening authority than Kramnik.

Actually you said you "strongly disagreed" that researching the repertoires of top players was a good idea for expert-level players. I don't see the advantage of limiting oneself this way (and I have done so myself, for too many years). We must remember that our opponents usually don't have the understanding and knowledge of a GM either, so why not try some really good openings?