Smyslov_Fan wrote on 03/04/15 at 13:39:35:


Black's usual plan of piling up on the d4 pawn is a straightforward idea to play which seizes the initiative unless White finds a good way, sacrificing it perhaps, to counter this pressure. 

The Kings Indian Attack with 1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Qe2 or 3. Nd2 has the advantage of giving White a template for the next ten or more moves, even if a somewhat stereotyped one. But we are talking about players under 1600.

kylemeister wrote on 02/16/14 at 20:28:08:

kylemeister, do you have any other prognostications?

I basically feel that recommending an improving player take up the Exchange French is a little like recommending that he play 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.d3 d6...

I hate how these threads always devolve into discussing the merits of the Exchange.

I think that below 1600, the exchange french is more likely to result in drawish positions than for people higher rated than this. Beginners don't try different approaches or alternatives. The play straightforward: they see an open files and put their rooks there, so major pieces are going to be retired from the board in the early middlegame, and the symmetrical structure dictates the rest of the game.

Before I started to study carefully the exchange as Black, a lot of my games in that line ended in BvK endgames (or BvB or NvN) with that symmetrical pawns. Theoretically drawish? Of course. A draw? Well, plenty of errors by both sides to make a draw less often than two strong people would got from that positions statistically, for sure !

Lately, lots of people (even below 1600) are playing againt french that 3.c4 lines, with an isolani complex battle arising. And las time I get 3.Nc3 in a "long" OTB game... well I don't remember when it was 

Lately I am facing (I'm 1800 FIDE playing vs a 1700-2100 FIDE opposition; very hard for me I have to admit):

- 40% 3.Nd2
- 30% exchange
- 20% Advance Variation, usually 6.a3 vs my 5...Bd7
- 10% rest of options (very few Nc3, and very few KIA surprisingly)

Salut,

I know this match didnt involve anyone under 1600, but Nigel Short's tweet made me laugh and reminded me of this thread...

Nigel Short @nigelshortchess  ·  Mar 1

"My opponent of today (M.Heidrich) discovered that 3.exd5 is not a guaranteed draw in the French Defence #worldsenileteamch"

Nothing beats 3.Nd2 in terms of simplicity+theoretical challenging line.

-> 3...a6, 3...h6 and such stuff: go 4.Bd3 and 5.Qe2 and in general wait for ...Nf6 in order to play e5+f4.

-> 3...Nf6 4.e5 and 5.Bd3 + Ne2 + Ndf3 and if ...f6 simply take it. 

-> 3...c5 4.Ngf3 and if 4...cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nc6 6.Bb5 with the idea to play Bxc6 + c4 and if allowed Qa4 next 

Is there really need to learn more than that? No! Is it challenging? Yes!

NO MORE FRENCH EXCHANGE PLEASE 

Returning to the subject matter ('What is the best variation against the French Defence for someone rated under 1600?'), I would say the Exchange Variation is the easiest (although I'd recommend 4.Nf3 as it has a tiny bit more sting than 4.c4, especially after 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.c4!), and the Milner-Barry could be good for a very aggressive young player, but the best one is probably 3.Nd2 - it's about as safe as you can get with enough flexibility to get positions you like, especially against 3...Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 which is the main continuation at club level from my experience. 

3.Nc3 is also good, but I think 3...Bb4 4.Nge2 is as recommendable an Anti-Winawer for club players as 4.exd5. Some will argue that it's a pawn sacrifice, but it's very instructive to learn how to play when Black hangs on to the pawn for grim death. And against 3...Nf6, I'd recommend either 4.Bg5 or 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Nf3, though in the case of the latter move order one could argue that the Two Knights Move Order (1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3) could be used as a means of dodging the Winawer.

I have recommended the approach given in 'The Fighting French' to sub-1600 players before, and it is a reasonable shortcut.

chandrashekharkoravi wrote on 09/23/14 at 05:56:12:


This looks really easy and fun for either side.

The Exchange variation with Bf4,Nc3,Qd2 and 0-0-0 as explained in http://www.chesscafe.com/text/abby20.pdf also looks a good try...but I think this line will work till a certain level, afterwards you have to change the line as it does not guaranttee any advantage for white...but still a playable and intresting option

chandrashekharkoravi wrote on 04/11/14 at 14:23:58:


This "strong novelty" is of use to no one--neither to you, nor to a grandmaster, nor to a 1600 player--as Aroshidze branched off of prior theory on move 8. No one will ever reach your "improvement" on move 17, because Black's play is in no way forced, and there are lots of decent alternatives much earlier. 9...c5 may be better than the text; 11...Nc6 may be better than the text; 14...Nf8 may be better than the text; and even 15...Nd5, at the last moment, prevents your idea. All these moves can be found as easily by others as by me, Komodo TCEC, Ph.D. Yet none of them changes the basic evaluation after Aroshidze's eighth move.

You seem to have the misconception that any random computer improvement at any point in a game constitutes theory worthy of posting in this forum. Yet such "improvements" swarm over middlegame  positions like mosquitoes, and are about as significant. They give neither positional insight nor opening guidance. We don't want to see them.

A strong novelty must reverse the evaluation of the line at its branching point.

Keano wrote on 04/11/14 at 12:21:02:


Yes its the same moves but I think Ng6 is a better move than c4 which happened in the game and might be a strong novelty...I will post my analysis sometimes...cant post it here as its for below 1600 player 

chandrashekharkoravi wrote on 03/04/14 at 17:20:14:


You forgot to take Banyoles out of your game.   

You have copied the game Aroshidze-Moskalenko, Banyoles 2007.

chandrashekharkoravi wrote on 03/04/14 at 17:20:14:


*** mod pov *** : if you want to post more on C12 McCutcheon...one new specific thread would be better (than current thread, topic is: "best line....for below 1600")...you surely understand what is an easy browsing chess forum. 

chandrashekharkoravi wrote on 03/01/14 at 05:45:03:
Yes!!!

Watson says that Be3 is the dangerous line in maccutcheon variation.What do you say is this line good???

PANFR wrote on 02/19/14 at 23:46:28:


I disagree with this.   

Let me state what I think is perhaps more beneficial to the OP -

A sub 1600 player would benefit very well from studying these types of positions, and to do so, select a line, as White, to tackle the French.  Learn it from videos or books which offer plenty of explanations.

Do that with the following - 

Studying well annotated games, watching videos of games in the French defense will help you a lot.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 02/19/14 at 18:45:55:


Agree, priceless and timeless advice ...

Keano wrote on 02/19/14 at 16:18:13:


Excellent advice, for players of any rating level!

Keano wrote on 02/19/14 at 01:06:16:


Of course that's possible, but not all books are rubbish.  You can play what you like but still have some material for study, especially if you're an improving player and haven't reached a fairly high standard of play yet (and sub-1600 players haven't).   

It doesn't have to be a huge theoretical tome; as an example I played the Ragozin (the Westphalia Defense) pretty successfully for a while based off of nothing more than reading the relevant section of Shereshevsky's Mastering the Endgame.  Even now that Barsky wrote his big tome, I'd still think that Shereshevsky's coverage is sufficient unless you're playing people rated above 2000 or so.

ErictheRed wrote on 02/18/14 at 17:04:30:


If the Tarrasch is the system of choice this Starting out book is indeed a good choice. I read quite some bad reviews about it but I think it's a good book. Of course it's not really in depth (how could it?!) but it's more useful than buying 7 specialized books a beginner will never look at. Sometimes reviewer act like a book is going to be the only source of information a reader will ever consult.

When i first started studying chess at age 25 i printed web articles and put them in a tabbed three-ring binder with handwritten notes and highlighter markings.  For the 2N French, I got by with a few web articles by Kenilworthian and also by searching the web for the "Jackal attack", a Two Knights variant.  The best single source for a club player may be Chris Baker's book "Startling Repertoire", covering short castling in the main variation.

Nigel Davies did a DVD for chessbase: "Classical steinitz french with 5.Nf3 in 60 minutes".  (Note that this is the mainline Two Knights from a different move order-- and it provides a retirement option so a player can "graduate" to a Classical Steinitz if you move beyond the 2N when you will still have the transposition option of 5.Nf3.)  Moskalenko has a chapter on the "Russian Roulette" in his book, the Flexible French.  Of course, a ChessPub subscription would also have annotated sample games.

One thing stronger players often forget but that needs serious consideration is: what study material is available?  A good book, article, or chapter on a particular line will go very far to making any variation accessible to improving players.  I like the 2-knights suggestion but am not sure what to recommend as study material.  I haven't seen McDonald's Starting Out: 1.e4, but that may be a good source for beginning with the Tarrasch, then moving on to Tzermiadianos' book as the player improves, etc.   

Some good study material is more useful than anything else for improving players, in my opinion.

I would suggest the 2 Kinghts variation, as mentioned already above. Depending on what you play vs. the Sicilian you start with 1. e4 e6 and now either 2. Nc3 (Closed Sicilian or GP) or 2. Nf3 (Open Sicilian, etc.).

I have also tried the Tarrasch and the Advance (both Milner-Barry and MLs), plus the Advance vs. the Caro-Kann (has some similarities). I think that these lines require more concrete play when you start playing vs. stronger opponents.

The 2 Knights make sense as a starting point and may be gradually substituted in the future with other interesting (main) lines. Somebody in this forum has suggested this approach but I cannot remember (I think it was BPaulsen?!? - advice was directed to a young White player iirc).

I had a feeling that anti-positional/pawn-dropping Bb5s might be quite common among something like sub-1600s.  I've also wondered how common it is for White to drop material after 3...c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Be2 cd 7. cd Nh6/Nge7.

Seraph wrote on 02/17/14 at 21:40:22:


This myth of trading down one pawn to reach a "drawish" position has been debunked many times, in many places. Most recently, there's a thread on that idea here:

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1391619848

The Exchange variation is a reasonable practical line.

Honestly though, I don't think anyone, including those rated under 1600, should avoid an opening because they are worried about the amount of theory their U1600 opponents know.  So, even if Black is "prepared" for the Advance variation, it remains a great weapon for White.

3. exd5

Yes, it's drawish. But you wouldn't have to learn that much theory since after that move it pretty much cuts down any other possibilities by black like the Winawer or Tarrasch or Fort Knox.

Thanks for all your replies friends.

Below 1600, you want to get in and get out of openings so you have time to look at classic games and do 15 minutes of daily tactics puzzles (not to mention have a life outside of chess).  That means that ideally, the basic idea should be understandable in 10 minutes.  So here goes:
(1) Exchange French with Be3 or Bf4, Qd2, and 0-0-0.  You want Black to castle short like a robot, then you try to checkmate him.  I would search for Abby Marshall's article on this at chesscafe.com: EDIT: here it is: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/abby20.pdf
(2) Another option is 2 Knights: 1.e4 and bring your knights out.  After e5xf6 and d4xc5 White will try to blockade the central dark squares, ideally with a knight planted on e5-- this makes the c8 bishop bad.  Also a knight on e5 helps you play g2-g4 to checkmate the guy's king.  White will also look to castle long here to go for the g2-g4 plan, but castling short is fine too and then the plan is really just to blockade e5 at all costs and trade off every piece to aim for a good knight vs bad bishop endgame.

Which one to choose?  Vanilla or chocolate.  Which one makes more sense to you?  If you still can't decide, look at a few games for each opening in a database such as 365chess.com

There is a lot of value in not getting bogged down in minute details.  You want a basic plan or concept to aim for.  You don't want move-by-move theory.  After you have the basic concept you can open a database and select moves that strike you as logical or intuitive.  From positions you arrive at by logical/intuitive moves  you can spend maybe 20-30 minutes scrolling thru games by titled players and consider what each side is trying to do.  The goal is to be efficient, then put the opening study away and look at miniature games or a classic book like Spielmann's Art of Sacrifice.

We haven't quite covered every reply yet. I was about to mention the Alapin Gambit (3. Be3). And as much as I like gambits, I never saw the appeal of the Milner-Barry Gambit in the French, though I do play the Caro Kann gambit with the same name.

I'll agree with the poster above who said that French players at low level see the Advance far more than anything else, so we end up being really prepared for it. That was my experience when I started playing the French, rated around 1250 USCF at the time, and probably until hitting the 1500s or higher. As white, I'd recommend avoiding that variation at first, just for that reason.

The real question is whether the white player wants to really learn the French, or would prefer to focus on getting better at tactics. If your goal is tactical improvement, then go for the Exchange or Alapin Gambit, both of which pretty much give up the first move advantage, but give you wide open, tactical games where you'll learn tactics or die trying. Especially the Alapin, partially because of the lead in development gained from gambiting a pawn (the double edged nature of gambits), and partially because of the balanced and potentially boring pawn structure in the Exchange. Going with one of these would be my recommendation for a 1400, since learning tactics is more important than learning a specific opening at that level. Also, French players tend to hate the Exchange, and most of them at that low level won't have seen the Alapin before, so they'll have no clue how to deal with it.

If you really want to learn something about the French, then Nc3 and Nd2 are probably both good options. 

I really don't understand all this fear of the Winawer for a 1400. It's not like he's going to walk into the mainline of the poisoned pawn facing opponents who know all the details as well as a GM. Just push 4. e5, unpin with 5. Bd2, and send your knight up to Nb5 to try and wreak havoc in black's position. Maybe it's not the strongest line to play by master standards, but it's sound enough, avoids the most demanding main lines, and can be fun to play. That's actually the line I was playing as white in the one and only game where I got a definitively winning position in a slow tourney game against a master... which I then proceeded to blunder away in time trouble and lose the game anyway. But that's why he's rated over 2200, and I peaked just short of 1800.

2 other ideas: 
* Exchange with Nf3 and c4
* KIA

Why?  There is (a) less to learn and some thematic play and (b) Black (at club level) will generally be relatively less familiar with these approaches (although KIA is very popular in some places). 

I know that Black can generate a lot of setups vs. the KIA but at club level you don't see it as much.

An a French player myself since I was 1700 (in my Chess Fed we start with 1700), I have to say that the advance is the line I faced the most by far. And it's the line I know better (and I knew better that days). But even said that, this line is the best one to know what the french is really about (both for White and for Black).

If you try to learn, go for the advance even if you fall in Black hands the first times you face it. Especially for kids, the perfect variation to master. If really strong players rely on this to beat the French (Shirov, Movsesian and Sveshnikov, for example come to my mind now), it's clear that it's not a bad option. A great opening/variation to learn about pawn breaks (c5 and/or f6), good/bad bishops, knight vs bishops endgames, open columns and how to get use of them....

If you want immediately results and don't bother to have some gaps in your chess education, play something else. Obviously you can master all the concepts I pointed in he other paragraph in other openings (like Kings Indian) but I think French advance is simpler to learn (always one simple column, usually one or two simple pawn breaks (always the same ones), always a clear bad bishop to deal with....). 

I like 3.Nd2 over other choices because at that level everybody will play Winawer against 3.Nc3 and you have to be well prepared to face that wild lines.

Good luck,

Milner-Barry for players below 2000 is an intersting choice. You should consider that his opponents do not know the theory like a master and it is easier to play here the white pieces because White has many "natural" moves and Black has to play very carefully (which costs at least a huge amount of time), even won positions can quickly go downhill.

I think the usual script for replies to this involves someone recommending the Exchange with 4. c4 and someone else disagreeing with that, but I probably can't recall the rest.

For the record, I can recall playing for the Milner-Barry Gambit when I was sub-1600.