aoc- My plaintive request for equal treatment for the French was made tongue-in-cheek, but you make a good point about players describing themselves as "aggressive" or "attacking". That certainly seems to be the most-admired style generally. I must have had a strange chess upbringing. After learning the rules, I went to the local public library to read more about the game. The best books available were ancient copies of Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals and Last Lectures, so perhaps I dodged the bullet with regard to being inoculated with the fealty to aggressive/attacking play that typically occurs. 

FreeRepublic wrote on 01/26/26 at 14:49:56:

FreeRepublic - I did play through the first two editions of Play the French, but I don't seem to have anywhere near as much free time as I did in those pre-internet days. Nowadays I'll play through sections of interest, but books are mainly for reference.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 01/25/26 at 05:17:49:

Yes, it is. I half-way expected someone to volunteer that 3...dxe is just right.

FreeRepublic wrote on 01/24/26 at 18:39:30:

It's the Goldilocks problem.

The Winawer French is sharp in a few lines, so I decided to look at 3...Nf6. The Stenitz variation appears to be the biggest hurdle. The main line runs 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3. There have been various recommendations for black. I chose one by GM Victor Moskalenko in the Fully Fledged French. It was later expanded upon in the  French Defense According to Moroni - Play the Steinitz Variation by GMs Moroni and Basso.

I've gone through some of their analysis both to learn it and to get a feel for the opening. I've also analyzed some on my own with an engine. Comparing my analysis to that of Moroni and Basso, they've always been right.

The play is often slower than I would like. However, it may feel very different when I play it over the board. (So far, my speed chess opponents are doing everything to get out of book.). Is this a stodgy opening? Well not always! Consider the following position:


1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 Be7 8. Qd2 a6 9. dc5 Nc5 10. O-O-O Qa5 11. h4 b5 12. Kb1 Rb8 13. Qe1 O-O 14. h5 b4 15. Ne2 Qc7 16. Ned4 Nd4 17. Bd4 Bd7 18. g4 a5 19. Rc1 Rfc8 20. g5 a4 21. g6 fg6 22. hg6 h6 23. Ng5 b3 24. cb3 ab3 25. a3 Qb7 *

FreeRepublic wrote on 08/06/25 at 15:18:48:


10. Qf2!? c4 11. Be2 b4 12. Na4 Nb6 13. Nc5 O-O 14. O-O a5 15. a4 Nd7 16. b3 Nc5 17. dc5 Qc7!? 18. bc4 d4! 19. Nd4 Nd4 20. Bd4 Bb7

White's two extra pawns are tripled and blockaded. The c5 pawn is likely to fall and the a pawn is vulnerable. Otherwise, Black has a fine diagonal for his queen bishop.

Veeeeery quickly on the exchange variation (I mean double exchange on d4 followed by ...Qb6):

a) In my view the gambit line with Qd2 isn't enough (although of course with the clock ticking (can i say ticking as we use only digital clocks today?!) it's not that easy) if black plays ...Ke7 and not Kf8 as in a Shirov-Bareev game (afterwords Bareev switched to Ke7) as white should take the draw with Qb4 and Nf5).

b) therefore with should exchange queens too. The resultig position is very solid. In my view a good starting point is a Kasparov-Bareev game of quite a few years ago. Kasparov won but Bareev helped. Improvements can be found with computer-aid. 
I have played quite a few games vs Rybka in this line as black and I have managed to draw almost 2/3 of them, although Rybka often sacs another pawn around move 18 (black st some point plays ...g5 and then ...f6: Rybka gives black the e5 pawn for initiative) which ins't that effective if black has already lost to it and thus learnt what to do. 

I know I am very vague and I am not submitting move numbers but I don't have a chessboard or chess program here to count the moves and I can't post my analisys and games vs Rybka as they were lost when my computer (literally) exploded (yep, no backup copies until then! ) 

When I'll be back to the "civil" world (i.e. my house with chessbase and a chessboard) if I remember I'll try and post what I have.

Cheers!

dom wrote on 08/11/08 at 23:07:53:


In your line 1...Nb6 2.Bb5+ Bd7 3.Qe2 and now for instance 3...a6 and I'm not sure white has achieved anything really. 4.Bxb6 Qxb6 5.Bxd7 is nice for black in my opinion.

1...Qa5 looks very strange in itself (what is the point? )

1...Bc5 might be good since it trades pieces, as long as he can activate or trade Bc8 later.

Otherwise one could consider 1...Be7 but as someone mentioned, black is not necesserily better 0-0ed than to stay in the centre. Thus I think 1...Be7 seems a little with out a real plan.

As I said, my feeling is that black should play to prevent f5 by white and look to exchange pieces at the same time. But again I might (most probably) be wrong in this assesment which is why I am looking for anyones opinion and I appreciate your thoughts.

Personally I would say it's between 1...Bc5 and 1...Bb4 to trade pieces and prepare to play either 0-0 or Ke7 some time. After 1...Nb6 black doesn't seem to be able to develop quickly enought and trade minor pieces and your other suggestion 2.Qg4 looks logical to me. Black will also play a6 some time aswell in order to protect d6.

This is just a reminder that one of the longest threads in the history of the Chess Pub was on the Steinitz starting from this position.  I don't have the address at hand, but it contained many interesting ideas from a variety of very strong players.  I dare say it even expanded theory a bit!  Check it out!