TonyRo wrote on 06/17/19 at 17:19:47:


Really interesting thought...I've always thought the main strategic theme for black as being the counter attacking chances against the white e5,  d4 pawn base....

In saying that I was playing chess when Uhlmann was king of us French players, so I guess he had a huge influence on my thinking. 

Do you think GM Meier may write a book or do a DVD on the Rubinstein one day? He would be able to provide some great insight into the strategic themes and judging by how well Longrock's book has sold there seems to be a market for it.

MW wrote on 06/17/19 at 03:42:42:


It is my opinion only of course, but it looks like Meier is the only sane one here. Is true Rubinstein variation looks passive, but is it really any more passive than that QGD line where Black accepts a horrible pawn structure with double isolated f-pawns in endgame ¿ Rubinstein is not popular at elite level, yet the latter is. Kramnik, and countless other GMs like that line. That QGD endgame line was also even recommended by Cox in his QGD book and Collins in his QGD DWD.

MW wrote on 06/17/19 at 03:42:42:


I think converse is true as well. If you want to learn endgame better, Rubinstein playing as Black would surely help you with your technique. Often Black has no weaknesses in his camp, so this helps quite a lot.

Two quotes from IM Langrock's book on the Rubinstein:

Black is "playing the Rubinstein to equalize fully".
"In this line White is looking for an endgame initiative. He will get this indeed, but I believe that in the resulting endgame Black can equalize with exact play."

A game Carlsen-Meier would be interesting for theory. However two years ago the WCh avoided the Rubinstein and preferred 3.exd5.

Hi.

Well. Here is what I think:

First the super strong players would consider the need to be prepared to play the advance as black (+some sidelines).

Then they would consider how much work would be required in the main variations of the Rubinstein. While this may not be incredibly much in principle (it doesn't strike me as a theory heavy opening) I think the main focus would be how much work would be required against mainly 2700+ opposition. For this I think the workload goes up very much regardless of opening.

But why would you mainly study the Rubinstein for use against really strong players? I think because playing the Rubinstein to get chances against lower rateds would not seem like an obvious fit. If say an ideal e4-e5 game against a lower rated involves a lot of stability for black, manouvering, timed changes in structure and things like that (where strong players should be stronger). If you're good in the Rubinstein, either by general skill or having studied, you will likely get in c5 or e5 nice and early; although afterwards you will basically have less structure to work with when it comes to outplaying the other guy.

Then I guess most would consider if the sunk time/effort cost of learning the stuff at a 2700 level would be worth it compared to alternatives. Presumably not many think so. Meier (E2624) does I presume but I think he can always use it in team-play events (where a solid line with black is useful). When he actually does face 2700's or near that level the line could be used as well. Greater experience, translating hopefully to less need for preparation and thinking in the early stages, could be worth something also against very strong players.

Have a nice evening.

Almost no 2700+ players play the Rubinstein French - it seems that Georg Meier is the highest rated player who uses it for more than a surprise weapon. Why is this? Is the opening in theoretical trouble?