Markovich wrote on 05/29/09 at 17:11:12:


You're welcome - consider it part payment for all the knowledge I've gleaned from your columns and posts to this forum!

OK, mutual admiration society meeting closed; 6...0-0 was advocated in Ziegler's useful repertoire DVD and there is also a short chapter on it in Moskalenko. It's interesting and I admit I haven't (yet) worked out a clear refutation, but I find it very, very scary - not the sort of French I'd like to play over the board.

I believe that the repertoire choices of the upcoming elite players will change and with it the role of the french on elite level. Mainly because asian players in my view will conquer the chess world or at least challenge the leading role of russian and ukrainian players even more than they did til now.  Sicilian probably will keep first place but many strong players from china,vietnam etc. have the french in their repertoire and keep using it with success (Ni Hua; Hua Lefong; Xu Yuhua; Ngoe Nguyen; Zhao Zon Yua; Wan Yuguo to name a few).

May be its because of their mentality; they are all real fighters with nerves of steel; ideal for the french defence. Petroff, Marschall, Berlin wall you find seldom in the repertoires of asian players. Either sicilian defence or french; a few CK, scandinavian and ruy lopez - but mainly they have fighting repertoires.
So I predict we will see a lot more of the french on elite level in the future. And only a question of time that a world champion comes from china with most probably using also the french as a standard defence to 1.e4 - and then nobody will discuss anymore if the french is 100 % correct, which  is  the case in my view. 

I don´t consider the drawing potential of the french Tarrasch a disadvantage of the french. It´s more the other way round - 1.e4 players only have a draw in the Tarrasch - a disadvantage of 1.e4 and not the french ; sweshnikow won a lot of games in the advance system o.k. - but mostly against lower rated players; and the wins against other grandmasters did often happen out of equal positions and had little to do with the opening.
And against Nc3 what about Illushin´s variant with Nb6/a6/Bd7 - are there problems for black ? And the Steinitz 7...Qb6 variant ? 

Greetings

Gilmour

Markovich wrote on 05/28/09 at 13:01:28:


I think that it is actually quite hard to say exactly what the theoretical standing of the Classical with 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 Be7 5 e5 Nfd7 is, because in recent years it has lacked regular support from among the top professionals. Instead, 4...dxe4 and 4...Bb4 are the pros’ choice.

There are two ways of looking at this:
a) Glass half empty: the relative neglect of 4...Be7 by the pros means that they do not trust it, lending weight to the traditional assessment that this line just has to be better for White, since he has already acquired several advantages: he has more space and he has exchanged his bad bishop for Black’s good one, leaving Black with two bad pieces (the c8 bishop and the d7 knight) and a persistent weakness on the dark squares.
b) Glass half full: there is still unexplored territory and room for creativity, and the fact that some very strong players (e.g. Kortchnoi, Morozevich, Bareev) are prepared to wheel it out from time to time indicates that, although not a guaranteed equalizer, the line is playable and probably not as bad as its reputation. It must contain many variations and ideas that have not been sufficiently “road tested” yet, and thus the evaluations (e.g. in ECO) should not be treated as gospel. Black can also be encouraged by these factors: his centre is solid and indeed practically unassailable in the near future; he can quickly build pressure on White’s pawn centre by ...c5 (once he has defused the threat of Nb5 in reply) and ...f6; finally the exchange of bishops has eased his cramped position a little and developed his queen to a useful square, eyeing both wings.

When students have reached a stage where they are ready and willing to try a half-open defence, this is one that I suggest, generally with decent results. I admit to having had a soft spot for 4...Be7 for some time, ever since I read the games of the strong Canadian GM Abe Yanofsky in his book “Chess – the Hard Way”.

Some specifics; IMHO, 6 h4 remains dangerous and unclear. Black has several playable options, but needs to know what he is doing. I consider 6...c5 to be fairly reliable, and the experimental Guimard-like 6...Nc6 (developing a piece and “threatening” ...f6 next) seems a promising area for research. I don’t fully trust 6...0-0 or 6...Bxg5 and consider everything else to give White a clear advantage.

After 6 Bxe7 Qxe7, most of the time one faces 7 f4 (but we can expect to see more of Watson's 7 Qh5), when both 7...0-0 and 7...a6 are playable. I encourage students to learn to play 7...0-0 first, since it is more straightforward. 7...a6 is admittedly more flexible (not yet revealing the monarch’s future location) , but making good use of that flexibility requires some judgement, based on experience, which first needs to be acquired.

For instance, after 7...0-0, any threat of Bd3xh7 can usually be met appropriately by ...f6 or ...f5, whereas in the 7...a6 line, once White has played Bd3 it can be very hard for Black to judge whether ...0-0 is safe or not, for instance see Pruess-Kraai, Berkeley 2008. Incidentally, at chesslecture.com. Kraai suggests that a logical way for White keep an edge against 7...a6 (which he prefers to 7...0-0) is 8 Nf3 c5 9 Qd2 Nc6 10 dxc5 Qxc5 11 0-0-0 b5 and now 12 Ne2, but again there is insufficient data. Besides, at almost every turn there are offshoots that have been played by very strong players: 8...Nb6 (Morozevich); 10...Nxc5 (Seirawan, Akobian); 11...Nb6 (Kortchnoi, Short).

Some other ideas that might be fruitful:  

7. f4 O-O 8.Nf3 c5 9. Qd2 Nc6 10. dxc5 Qxc5 11. Bd3 f6 12. exf6 Nxf6!? 13. O-O-O Rb8 intending ...b5. - WGM Danelian has scored well with this recently. The bad d7 knight finds a good square, the black king is safer and there is counterplay on the queenside as well as (possibly) against e3 and f2.

7. f4 O-O 8.Nf3 c5 9. Bd3 f5 10. exf6 Rxf6!? – Yanofsky almost beat Bronstein with this at Saltsjobaden 1948 (eventually drawn) but it has been generally dismissed as inferior since he lost with it against Gligoric at Dallas 1957; however, I think Black’s play can be improved.

7. f4 a6 8 Nf3 b6!? followed by ..c5; a Cuban idea, ensuring very different play from normal, since White’s usual dxc5 plan will be ineffective.

Put all this uncertainty together and finally mix in the very different structures of the MacCutcheon and the Burn and it becomes easier to understand that the widespread preference for 4 e5 is above all a practical one. Although the variation tree after 4 e5 is now enormous, at least with 4 e5 White is guaranteeing himself the same structure every game, and he can comfort himself with the thought that Black’s cramp will be worse without the exchange of bishops. However, since this is a typical French structure, and as a bonus he gets to keep his better bishop, Black can be satisfied too.

Sorry for the delay in replying - and then it turned into an essay!

Keano wrote on 05/29/09 at 08:07:04:


Black is doing way better in 4. e5 than anything after 4. Bg5. In fact, black is doing well theoretically in multiple lines after 4. e5.

I've noticed that MacCutcheon, and even Winawer players are uncomfortable in it less because of the theory than the fact the counterplay isn't something they're used to. Whereas people that've long played the 4...Be7 against 4. Bg5 are much more at home, because the themes are similar. It's part of the themes we get used to in practical play, and it effects our ability to handle them well if we're not used to it.

Until I got the experience necessary to handle 4. e5, I was uncomfortable with it since I used to be a Winawer player only in practice. Not surprisingly, due to Winawer experience I was able to pick up on MacCutcheon themes much easier.

BPaulsen wrote on 05/28/09 at 22:22:50:


Really? 4.e5 is the move that scares me most about 3...Nf6, and has the practical advantage of eliminating various other stuff like the MacCutcheon.

I agree with all your other theoretical verdicts, but the bottom line is it doesnt really matter a damn once the practical game has started.

I like the title of this thread, since its a question I ask myself frequently every time I lose to a GM or IM after having played the French and suffered with some passive position most of the game.

In the end though, after experimenting with various other stuff, I feel we cant completely blame the French - but there are dangers playing such an opening, well to admit it. Its a quirky fascinating  opening, maybe not 100% correct but below 2600 level probably as sound as anything else. For now I will keep the faith!

Not even in the Sicilian are you immune; the Alapin (aka c3 Sicilian) generates much the same problems as the Tarrasch French. With 2...Nf6 against the Alapin you can equalize, but only if you are prepared to learn some long theoretical lines, while every other second move for Black entails some risk (see Tiviakov's DVD and Sveshnikov's book for confirmation of this statement).

For French defence specialists, the Tarrasch is not the main problem though - Black has a wide choice of playable defences and can specialize in say two of these (e.g. a solid one where you might have to suffer a bit if White really knows how to press you, plus a more unbalancing one when you must play for a win); whereas the white player has to master a very large amount of theory after 3 Nd2 and be a good enough player to handle the very wide range of position types that can arise.

Nor is the exchange much of a problem. Most French specialists have a healthy plus score against it and a study of the games of pro players who specialize in the French (i.e. rely on it for a living) can be highly instructive.

Concerning the Advance, Sveshnikov contends that White simply has to be better in the position after 3 e5 than in the start position; and he may well be correct!   However, in practice Black gets to fight on very familiar terrain and has a wide choice of playable plans and move-orders.

No, the real problem is 3 Nc3, which is comparable in importance to the Open Sicilian. On the one hand, as Black you are glad to be able to play your main system (Winawer, MacCutcheon, Dragon, Najdorf etc.) but on the other hand this is precisely where the greatest threat is contained. Against 3 Nc3 you have to really know the theory and you should have some ideas of your own as well, since IMHO White is somewhat better theoretically in every single line against 3 Nc3.

dom wrote on 05/27/09 at 11:45:48:


I haven't seen any improvements in years for the black side in the main line of 9. Nf4 (the main line having been around since the '80s). It's been dynamically equal for a couple decades now. If you've got new analysis, I'd certainly love to see it.

Sure, there's generally better prospects in the main line, but that is theoretically equal as well as far as I'm aware.