|
Well, 'with all due respect' I didn't claim this is a good line to play against a GM. However, I think you're wrong about it being 'garbage.' More on that later. At the club level, an openings absolute correctness doesn't matter so much. Who's likely to remember Leko's line against the MacCutcheon? In a club or small weekender, having a feel for a position is more important.
So, one could look at :
Rublevsky (2672 FIDE) - Goncharov (2310!) in your "Nobody plays" move order (don't make me laugh):
1.e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd4 3.Nf3 e6 4.d4 Nf6 5.c4 Qd8 (!) 1/2-1/2 in 51 moves.
The point of a book like "Flexible French" is to show moves that make up "alternative" openings and either give approx. equal positions or that don't have a widely published or easily arrived at refutation. Of course White is better here...as in the Mac French, or the Queen's Gambit, or... I could go on.
I mentioned "feel" because after exd5 the position is not a French, it's more of a Petrov. Of course, that's a great opening, but it's not a French! Also, it's a pain having to be so flexible. "If White plays Bb5 here, you do this. If White does this you can castle Queenside, but not if he does this...remember the variation where your Knight must go to g6," etc...3...Qxd5 has the advantage of perhaps allowing Black to play one similar set-up against everything, like a game I once saw Hannes Langrock (well he's only an FM, what does he know) play where he went for a sort of Hedgehog set-up.
And Black can only really get active in certain variations of the regular exchange lines, so I disagree with your conclusion "good, active play."
|
Pages: 
C00-C19: Flexible French (Read 61033 times)
