Smyslov_Fan wrote on 09/03/09 at 02:04:25:


In the WC semifinals, I played 1.d4 as white and 1.e4 c5 as black, but at master class level I had +0 =4 -0 as black in the French and +2 =1 -0 with 3.e5 as white. The results were better than my positions after the openings.

I had problems with 3 Nc3 after watching some repertoire DVDs and trying to play it.  There are too many sharp lines where you can lose immediately if you don't know all of the theory or if you forget a move.  I got the Tzermiadianos book and French players getting mowed down by the dozens now.  It's really a great book.

I think you should go with the Tarrasch and the Tzermiadianos book.

@MartinC

I see your point, but it's a bit funny that you are yourself a good counter-example since you DID have a dangerous pet line ready in 7...0-0 (incidentally one of my favorite blitz openings)

In any of the Classical with 7...Qb6, the Classical with 7...Be7, the MacCutcheon, the Winawer PP or the Winawer 7...0-0 I would absolutely not want to be White without serious preparation.

With 3.Nd2 on club level you will often meet French players with only a hazy idea of either playing with an IQP and often doing so too passively, or playing 3...Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 and attacking White's centre with standard moves like ...c5, Nc6, Qb6, f6 etc. In the latter case the result is the following main line:

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 [5.f4 could also be good on club level, if White is aware of all the possible ...Nxe5 sacrifices) 5...c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ne2 Qb6 8.Ndf3 cxd4 9.cxd4 f6 (I also often see 9...Bb4+) 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.0-0 Bd6 12.b3 0-0 and here either 13.Bf4 or 13.Bb2 give White comfortable play and good chances for an edge.

PS Of course theoretical knowledge on club level is often modest, but one thing that amazes me is the number of people who play the Najdorf (!) of all openings with little concrete knowledge. Probably they saw Fischer, Kasparov or Topalov play it and concluded it must be great, but still playing it without theory is insanely risky imho.

dom wrote on 09/01/09 at 16:42:57:


Yes the articles notes indicated that the position is equal in several lines and f6 is one on them.

bragesjo wrote on 09/01/09 at 12:34:40:


I am interested with this line ... because I talked some months ago with one IM which played against as Black... and can be worth a study, because 1) off-beat 2) no problem with d4 pawn like in Millner Barry after Bd3 3) plan is often found in other lines..

The basic question being "what is Black plan if attack with knights leads to nowhere"....I don't work much about it, but is Black move  f6 (undermining pawn center) the right way ?

My limited experience has lead me to think that 3.Nc3 requires more of the white player but might also be more rewarding. Some lines lead to quite unusual positions (MacCutcheon, Winawer with 0-0, Winawer with Qa5-a4) which could be tricky to play just once in a while for the white player. 3.Nd2 is safer. Many positions look quite close to equal but are probably easier to play for white than black. There has been several discussions about the merits of statistics in chess. I think that = lines that scores well for one side should probably be += (or =+) instead. In any case, I think that Kaufman wrote that 3.Nd2 scores better than 3.Nc3.

PS. 3.e5 is not a terrible move. See books by Sveshnikov. Grischuk played some excellent games with 3.e5.

I have the same problem... I play Nc3 so far, but it is highly theoretical (Winawer poisened pawn, classical (different systems 7).

so maybe 3.Nd2 is more realistic ? Also tzermis book is quite good

Can I hear some more commnets?

Markovich, help!