Quote:


I'm talking in general. Not about concrete variations. French is my choice.

Quote:


I don't think so. I consider that the French is a better learning tool as I said before. There are not much more pawn structures in the CK than in the French. 

CK,
1. Give up the center structure
2. gxf6 structure
3. exf6 structure
4. Carlsbad structure + Transformation into isolani as black
5. Panov, isolani, structure
6. Gurgenidze structure
7. Advance structure

French
1. Petroff structure
2. Advance structure
3. gxf6 structure
4. Doubled pawns structure (Mac and Winawer)
5. Tarrasch, isolani, structure
6. Sicilian structure (KIA)
7. Exchange, isolani, structue (4.c4)

You are not losing too much I think.

Quote:


Ok! This is not the reason why I like the French. But, please, let me tell you a secret: I have won some bishops on the g3 square. Even against MF opposition. Can you imagine how? Look at Victor's games. Terrific stuff!! 

Quote:


Yes it is. White has more options to win in the CK exchange than in the French exchange.

Quote:


I'm sure this system is fully playable against any opposition. You just have to belive in. Now comes to my mind the variation recomended by Kosten in the Easy guide to the Najdorf book against the Bg5 line..., i listened here: dubious, bad, etc..., did you see the game Smeets-Domínguez at WAZ 2010?

Quote:


It depends, fundamentally, on the white's side attitude. In case white goes for the win at all cost, then can lose. Black has to pay too much, in time, for developing his light squared to have real winning chances if white just want a draw. That's my point.

Holbox wrote on 02/03/10 at 08:33:29:


Let's clear first what we mean by "Caro" and "French".  Because one may as well think we are talking about the French Exchange and Caro-Kann Panov Attack, and can't understand anything...

I, too, like the black side of the French, but if I made it my #1 defence, I would feel like I missed something. (I learn more about chess by playing the Caro-kann--more pawn stuctures (and plans). Panov, 2.c4, Advance, Two Knights, Fantasy, BDG, Classical, Classical deviations, etc. I have to be prepared for more.)

Addicts with blind enthusiasm for a certain rigid pawn structure are not the best when they are faced with new challenges.
Last year I played as White against a 2150+ French adherent (in our game 1.d4 f5 was the opening) and to my astonishment he didn't seem to be aware of time in chess. I sacrificed a pawn early in the game for an attack on the king and he continued to make pawn moves and finally, with a happy face, danced around with his d6(!)K, his only piece not on the back rank by move 15, and reached a hopeless position (Rybka showed it was "+-"), which he didn't even recognize in the course of the game because I erred immediately and let him swap queens. (I presume he thought as long as his usual "d5-e6" structure was intact he would be safe...)

A question: 
Would you be a french-fan with the same enthusiasm if in every single game your opponent played 3.exd5...? (It may be equal but would not be that interesting any more.)
You do expect your opponents to take more risk, but that's not compulsory from their part. The C-K exchange is more imbalancing, you can't deny that.
The same applies to winning possibilities. You very often expect White--that on seeing 1..e6 2..d5--to take space and close the position to your c8B at one point, when, below a certain level, you are probably more familiar with a rigid pawn-structure you play game after game than him.

HoemberChess wrote on 02/02/10 at 13:47:43:


It's true that you have to work on the bad bishop, but that's only one of several factors. Other factors include fighting for the centre (e.g. ...c5 and ...f6 against the e5+d4 central structure, and even ...g5 against f4 in the Steinitz Variation), bishop pair vs. centre (such as in the Burn Variation), attacks on opposite wings (the MacCutcheon and main line Winawer being two obvious examples), and when and where to castle (especially in most lines of the Advance Variation). I'd also suggest that familiarity with the key pawn structures and in which circumstances they are favourable/unfavourable is especially important in the French.

I tend to agree that the French is a good choice if you have a tendency to indecision, since the play often is quite strategic and a bit slow to develop, unlike say the English Attack in the Open Sicilian. 

However, I disagree that the French is an inflexible opening with a limited number of possibilities; I recall that one Grandmaster stated that against the Tarrasch Variation, there were at least 10 playable 3rd moves for Black, which is certainly a larger number of possibilities than in most openings. Some of the positions are slightly cramped due to the e5-pawn's control of both f6 and d6, but if Black doesn't do anything foolish in the first 10 moves, his pieces shouldn't suffer any claustrophobia. 

The Caro-Kann isn't an opening where 'many can err more easily'; one of the main advantages of the Caro-Kann is that it is easy to learn, doesn't require deep theoretical knowledge in most variations and there are only a limited number of traps that either side can fall into. The Caro-Kann is also a fairly flexible opening, but not as flexible as the French, which is not  surprising given that 1...e6 opens the f8-a3 diagonal for the dark-squared bishop, whereas 1...c6 doesn't but keeps the c8-h3 diagonal open.

And before I forget: Congratulations to ghengisclown and nyoke for becoming God Members!

I never seem to run short of arguments.

Someone wrote that in most variations of the French you always have to work on the bad bishop--even when there is nothing else to do... (I liked the remark!)
IMHO, below a certain level, the French is an optimal choice for the undecided; that might be one reason why it is played by so many women. You yourself limit your freedom of movement and in fact you doesn't have so many options to choose moves from, while in most Caro-Kann variations many can err more easily.

HoemberChess wrote on 05/27/09 at 08:24:02:


I think I made that point.   I think at the time i said: 

1. Against White players who are more than 150 points stronger (or whatever elo number you prefer), it is possible that the aggressive white options against the caro, e.g. 3. e5, will work too well for white and give white too many chances. Therefore Black should play the French.

2. Most players who are near your rating (say 150 points above or below) will want to play for the win with White and therefore will try something very aggressive against the caro like 3. e5... then Black gets very good play, arguably easier/better play than he gets in the french. Therefore here Black should play the Caro.

3. Against White players who are more than 150 points weaker, Black should play the french because it is much harder to kill the game.

The Caro. I'm more comfortable with those positions and my recent improvement has been with it as my main defense against 1. e4.

For me, the C-K is safer and I like to grind my opponent. But my intention is to play both--the CK vs. opponents I don't know much about and the French vs. weaker opponents. If they are weaker and want only a draw in the exchange French, that's already a bad policy, so we have some advantage.

I think that this is simply a matter of personal taste. It's a bit like do you prefer Pepsi or Coke- .

The French seems to lead to more lively and dynamic play and occasionally 3 nc3 seems to cause certain lines to look slightly dubious.

The Caro must have the most merit in terms of being a long term system as it's been regarded as one of the soundest and most reliable lines. Not for nothing have the following World Champs Karpov, Botvinnink, Petrosian, Anand and Topalov (only a fide WC) played it regularly and yes I know GK played it too !