The other problem with playing like that is that you're giving white quite real winning chances. Feels a bit generous frankly.

The line recommended in a DVD by Nick Pert is to play ...Nc6, ...Bd6, ...Nge7, ...Bg4, ...Qd7 followed by castle queenside and kingside attack!

He says usually weaker players play the French against him so he just tries to checkmate them 

That is the first time I have heard of a strong player giving up the French because of the exchange variation.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 10/26/11 at 17:05:31:


Great point. In fact I frequently do that myself, also in the KIA. But what is the nongeneral reason to play along as Black and  use ...Nf6 in response to Ne2, only to see White able to do that same thing to you? As for myself, like Stigma I always play ...Ne7, unless White can still play c4 without losing time. I like to neutralize White's possibilities of Ne5, Bf4 and Bg5.

I found the Korchnoi quote I was thinking of, on the French Tarrasch:



Dvoretsky recalls analysing a similar position with Korchnoi, and being surprised when Korchnoi played ...Nf6 instead of ...Nge7. Korchnoi's answer:

Quote:


(Dvoretsky/Yusupov (1996). Positional Play. Batsford, p.62.)

In the French Exchange, frankly I don't see why Black can't answer either of White's three main moves 4.Nf3, 4.c4 and 4.Bd3 with 4...Nf6, provided he plays purposefully afterwards. Personally I often put my knight on e7, even if White has also played Nge2. The point of the Svenonius rule is to ensure unbalanced and interesting play, not that Black is necessarily worse if he plays symmetrically (though in some specific lines he may be).

Blunderer wrote on 10/25/11 at 20:56:54:


I think the hypothesis is a general one, that more symmetrical positions tend to be more drawish, or at least tend to be more technical in nature. In symmetrical positions small difference in piece placement, or one tempo, can create an initiative, but not usually one of huge magnitude. Where there is less symmetry there is more instability. Because this is a strategic, long-term idea, it is based on playing the percentages--something is more likely to happen but you don't know exactly what. That's why it's hard to pin down.

Many players want to enhance their winning (and losing) chances in the notorious exchange variation which, as with the Slav, deters some from playing the French; so they choose contrasting piece placements for their own sake in those situations where the choices are relatively equal in merit.

Similarly if your opponent plays a setup with c3 you can play Nc6, and if your opponent plays Nc3 you can play c6.

For the same purpose you can also try to avoid building up (and eventually trading--more drawish) heavy pieces on the e-file, if only you cover all the entry squares carefully.

Finally the ultimate unbalancing strategy in the French exchange is opposite-side castling.

Stigma wrote on 10/25/11 at 22:45:10:


You might be totally right. I think it was about the exchange, though, but I can check when I get home today (or somebody else with the book).

I agree about the imbalance, though. Also, Black in general wants to exchange his light-squared bishop, and after Nf3 ...Nge7, he might be able to do it either on f5, or g6 following ...Bg4, h3, ...Bh5 and then ...Bg6. White on the other hand will not be able to force an exchange of his dark-squared bishop if Black doesn't want to, since there is always ...f6.