The last year I found 3.Nd2 was being played against me more often than any other alternative, particularly by young up and coming players but also by IMs. The "univeral system" which I dont think much of, but may have somewhat underestimated, is becoming a bit of a hit.

I had various experience vs various players:

- Khamrakulov: Tarrasch  (Condom)
- Prie : Advance  (rapid Naujac and simul night Montreux)
- Fressinet : Exchange Winawer
- Nataf : Exchange Winawer (simul)
- Tirard : Exchange Winawer
- Kosten: Advance with a dxc5 (rapid long time ago Rodez)
- Lau : Tarrasch
- Santo Roman : Winawer
- Juglard : Mc Cutcheon
- Cornette : Tarrasch Nf4 (he was very young at this Bordeaux rapid tournament)
- Renet : Winawer (simul ET)
- Donchev: Winawer classical with ooo for black (blind simul)
- Nepeina Leconte: KIA (simul)
- Olivier Leconte : Mc Cutcheon Be3
- Safranska Anda : KIA
- Boudre : Tarrach main closed line
- Pareira : KIA (simul CEIT...he was very young at that time)
- Marciano : Tarrasch

and so on 

What is clear for me is a good player usualy sticks to main lines or positions he likes to practice ... because he has NO obvious reason to choose a dubious opening vs a low rated player.

I played only one time 2-knights variations in Budapest vs hungarian player...he knowed like me old game from the 1970's....Spasky game.

Tarrasch Nf4 was played vs me at nice by a low rated player (maybe 1800 Elo) at Nice tournament: somebody told him it was a good off-beat variation against the closed main line Tarrasch...but no lucky, I was enough experienced at that time to know what to do as Black. Same with young Cornette, he played this line and after the usual exchange sacrifice I won with my pawn center. Sometimes result of a game is not decided by knowledge of the opening moves...but just the plans at the end of the line written in the books. If you didn't work yourself on other games...you have done only half work.

I agree a lot of unprepared players try the advanced or exchange variations. However, I think it is a bad choice to try the advance if you are not well prepared. While it does not require as much memorization of lines as does 3.Nc3 or 3.Nd2, the advance really requires white to have a good understanding of typical ideas and plans, else he might find himself worse very quickly, since his central pawns will come under heavy pressure and perhaps be lost.

This is of course great from black's perspective

Fromper wrote on 06/21/10 at 00:42:07:


I think it may even be a little bit more than that. For the longest time I dismissed playing 1...e5 against 1.e4 just because it felt like that was the move White wanted to see. Whether their special opening was a Ruy, King's Gambit or whatever, 1.e4-players play 1.e4 because it allows them to play their favorite opening. So I chose the Sicilian to frustrate their hopes.

I've learned since then that there's more to openings than that, but I sort of feel a similar way about playing the Advanced vs the French. On some basic, intrinsic level, the French is all about whacking away at pawn chains. 3.e5 allows French players to do exactly what the French Defense is designed to do.

I am a devoted french defense player for nine years ( almost since I started to play chess with anyone other than my elder brother) and have faced 3.Nc3 markedly more often than other tries, both otb and online.
But I guess it depends on level of  your opponents also.