MNb wrote on 03/30/10 at 23:41:02:


Read my post carefully: I immediately conceded that if White wants to play for an advantage with 3.Nd2 it may be as much work as 3.Nc3 (I'm not sure whether that's true, but I accept it for the sake of argument).

There's no contradication, I was just making two (related) points:

1) Even for those who study the theory deeply, the critical Tarrasch lines often turn on nuances deep in the ending, and involve less risk than the Winawer Poisoned Pawn or even the positional Winawer. Hence its frequent use by strong technical players.

2) The non-critical, low-theory lines within 3.Nd2 involve even less risk, and can still lead to interesting games. A perfect choice for happy amateurs, especially those with a positional style.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 03/31/10 at 00:27:10:


3. e5 has always lagged behind the two knight moves, and it's only just as good if black is fully equal and comfortable in both 3. Nd2/3. Nc3.

I played the French for 10 years, without a doubt the stiffest test was 3. Nc3 and going straight down the main lines.

The only problem with black against 3. Nd2 is how to get winning chances, equalizing/drawing is not that big of a deal. If you try too hard to win you get stuck in the slow grinds. Obnoxious.

Stigma wrote on 03/30/10 at 23:00:15:

But as you wrote yourself playing for small advantages like that with success demands thorough preparation - the key of success ot the three grinders you mentioned. So you are more or less contradictioning yourself.
Either you want to play for an advantage and have to do a lot of work or you don't want to do a lot of work and must give up hope for an advantage after 3.Nbd2. White can't have it both.

MNb wrote on 03/30/10 at 22:31:37:


3.Nd2 may require as much study to play for an advantage as 3.Nc3. But if White just wants to reach a playable position without knowing loads of theory (as many amateurs want), 3.Nd2 is perfect. There are playable low-theory choices against every major black defence.

The choice is also a question of style. Generally 3.Nd2 is calmer, more positional than 3.Nc3: White plays for small advantages but also with little risk. It's no accident that it's been played by expert "grinders" like Karpov, Adams, Tiviakov etc.

Hi there,
What about playing 3.Nbd2 and use the system recommened by McDonald's Starting out 1.e4??
Zatara

The Milner-Barry gives White less than nothing if Black knows what to do. Moreover Black can avoid it with 5...Nh6.
Objectively best is just 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3. If for some reason (eg not enough time to study the most promising lines) this is not an option I have two suggestions:

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 with a very non-French game.
1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 (2.Nc3) d5 3.Nc3 (3.Nf3) Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.d4 c5 6.dxc5 Nc6 7.Bf4 Bxc5 8.Bd3 f6 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.Qe2 0-0 11.0-0-0!? Check some games by Alexander Zakharov and Ian Nepomniachtchi.

Later edit: also check the thread on the Kaissiber Competition on top of this section.

Are you an attacking player?? I think a more relevant question is what suits your style as a player. 

If your opponents are not too strong or up with theory and you want to play the Advance (and you're a tricky attacker with some imagination) than the Milner-Barry makes sense. 

If you're looking for something less speculative, the King's Indian Attack is what I would look into.

The above variations are more or less difficult to avoid. Black can try 3...b6 or something but you'll probably get the Milner-barry Gambit most times whereas if you play the Kupreichik (which I consider drawish) that he can avoid it altogether as Flig mentioned. If you play the mainlines then you have to know what to do against a bunch of different choices that Black has at his disposal. 

The KIA can be pretty effective against most French players...and there's a ton of material on it.

So Nh6 is the refutation?  I did not think so but I am new to the variation.  Again, I am trying to figure out a good system for White and if the Advance is the place to look.  Thanks for the info.

YD