gillbod wrote on 04/19/18 at 23:02:06:

I have no idea about the current theoretical status of the ...Bd7 and ...f6 lines, but there is a feeling that Be2 is a more useful move than a3, so it's harder to believe Black is fully OK after 6.Be2 f6.

I tried to follow Williams back when only the DVD (The Killer French) was out. There one main line recommendation was 5...Bd7 6.Be2 Nge7 7.0-0 Nf5!?, when the critical independent try for White is 8.Bd3 (8.Na3 instead transposes to other lines). After 8...cxd4 9.Bxf5 exf5 10.cxd4 Williams reached a standard position type (that Moskalenko is a big fan of). But he didn't mention 10.Nxd4! instead, which leads to a very "un-French" position that looks uncomfortable for Black to me. Though I know Antic and Maksimovic try to defend Black's cause here in their repertoire book.

P.S.: The contents of The Killer French is now also an eBook, and the free excerpt just happens to contain the parts on the Advance! https://www.gingergm.com/shop/killer-french-the-book-ebook

In general I have the impression Black has many different tempting answers to 5...Bd7 6.a3, while the road is narrower against 5...Bd7 6.Be2.

bragesjo wrote on 04/20/18 at 07:27:59:

At one point I believed I had found good replies to the Kupreichik, but it's played so rarely I would probably have forgotten my lines when I finally faced it! So yes, if Black uses ...Qb6 lines it is tempting to just rule the Kupreichik out with 4...Qb6. ...Bd7 fans don't have that luxury.

I also had great results with the Advance when I briefly dabbled with e4 and used it exclusively against the French, and have also gone for 1.d4 e6 2.e4 since returning to d4.

But I don’t like facing that ...Bd7 stuff that Williams’s repertoire book advocates.

Regarding all of those people who hate the French, it's funny that I often used to answer 1.d4 e6 with 2.e4!.  Then again as a 1.d4 player, I am perhaps more accustomed to play with pawn chains than many 1.e4 players are.  My results were always fine, and I just played main-line stuff: the Advanced or the Tarrasch.  Perhaps luckily, I very rarely faced 4...Qxd5 in the Tarrasch, and then I switched to the Advanced.

Playing 3.e5 is kind of funny; on the one hand, you might think that it's exactly what Black wants to see.  On the other, White can control the structure and type of game to a large extent: there is no Winawer, Rubenstein, MacCutcheon, Steinitz, etc. to prepare for.  Also I find that many club players who play 3.e5 just want to play the Milner-Barry Gambit, so a more sophisticated positional player can play 3.e5 to pose somewhat different problems than most Black players face.

ReneDescartes wrote on 04/17/18 at 17:46:15:


Exactly. You said it better than me.

Both 3.Nc3 Nf6 and 3.Nc3 Bb4 are strategically difficult to play for both sides, especially the quirky Winawer. A knowledge/experience advantage really counts for something here, so White can't just wing it and play by intuition against deviations that are likely the opponent's home turf. The only good options are a) doing one's homework or b) playing something less demanding.

Stigma wrote on 04/16/18 at 16:41:16:


Very true. But the problems I have with the French are not really the mainlines, but the infinite number of little sidesystems at Black's disposal, all of which your opponent seems to be an expert at, yet you've never seen before. I actually quite like the big mainline positions for White (I'm basing my repertoire on Negi, so I avoid the PP in the Winawer).

One time when I was especially fed up with the French (and also doing badly in a tournament), I gave 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.c4?! a punt.  It worked well enough that one time, but I wouldn't fancy playing it against anyone who'd seen it before.

Bancrates wrote on 04/07/18 at 12:13:43:


The French was my problem opening as well until I gave up 1.e4.  I think the line I hated playing against most was the McCutcheon. 

Although, there was one player at my old club who always played the French against me, and he used to play it so passively that I'd get a great attack and win some fantastic games.  If it wasn't for that guy, I think I'd have switched back to 1.d4 years sooner.

Stigma wrote on 04/12/18 at 21:34:51:

I second this motion. At one time I did not have a defense to the English Opening. Just a terrible record against it. I was already an expert (2000 USCF) but simply clueless in this opening, partly because it was so rare in my games. So I started playing it for white and let my strongest opponents teach me.

When you don’t know enough about an opening, for totally abstract reasons you reject certain counters that are actually quite good. Turn the board around and strong players who do know the opening will choose the good counter. Then you go home and analyze, and realize that your abstract “reasons” were largely irrelevant.