1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5. 4.nf3 cd4!!! Nf3 is a very popular stratigical mistake. Always take a pawn on d4 if you see this move. 

If, as a French player, one is happy with the positions arrived at after 
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 cxd4 5. cxd4 Ne7 6. Nf3 Nf5 7. Bd3 Nc6 8. Bxf5 exf5 9. Nc3 Be6 (Black scores close to 50% here, the position often being reached by transposition; GM Igor Glek used to get great results with this structure),
or something like 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 cxd4 5. cxd4 Ne7 6. Na3 (probably the most testing idea, in some move order or other) 6...Nbc6 7. Nc2 Nf5 8. Nf3 Qb6 (also often reached by transposition, with Black scoring overall a respectable 45%,

then unless there is some drastic early improvement for White, which I can't see at the moment, the early exchange seems perfectly playable, and has the great virtue (for some players anyway) of avoiding the recently popular improved Milner-Barry Gambit. 

Perhaps some French Defence specialist could further enlighten us?

Just as "a weakness is not really a weakness unless it can be exploited", so it is with move orders.

It's not false. As far as I can see, FMCharles is a FIDE master who got the title in 2007 at age 22. It show some restraint that he didn't bother to argue with the poster who disputed his title.

I thought this thread was about false claims of FIDE titles.

I thought this thread was about the Advance. But now when I return to look at it suddenly it's about the Winawer... What happened?

The ChessPub Forum works in mysterious ways.

The idea first seems to have been used by John Moles himself in the preliminary rounds of the Siegen Olympiad (1970). Moles puts his queen on a5, worms the Bd7 bishop out to the kingside via e8 and a5, and defends against an attack down the b-file using his queen at a6 and a rook on d7. His opponent sacrifices a piece for an attack and central outpost, but Moles eventually generates a successful mating attack himself using only his rooks and bishop. In the final position, Black can play 42...Rf7 and the rooks will give mate.


I have used this system personally quite a bit as Black, albeit in a more primitive way. If Black doesn't play a4, I  blockade the queenside with ...Ba4, put my queen on c7 or d7 (not a5), then castle long, if necessary plugging the b-file with ...b3 or ...b4. The idea is pretty simple--to maintain the blockade and use the queen with the heavy pieces on the kingside in a pawn storm. It can work well in practice if White tries a normal plan of castling short and trying to find a way to attack the queenside, but if White keeps his king in the center and advances his own kingside pawns, I don't think the system is that great. 

Nernstian59 wrote on 03/20/22 at 00:53:34:

Despite the "Copyright (c) 1964 by I. A. Horowitz", this book was subcontracted to some Dutch masters under the direction of Euwe. At that time Horowitz was mainly a bridge player and many of the titles appearing under his name in the 1960s were ghost-written. The main theoretical part seems to have been completed no later than 1960. Probably the publication delay was due to the need to translate to descriptive notation for the USA readers.

For example, in the Sicilian Defense I counted 36 references to 1958, 63 to 1959, and later than that only seven. Of those, only the reference on page 406 to Beverwijk 1960 (i.e. January) is in the theoretical "Practical Variations":

• 1960 - pages 398, 406, 414, 434
• 1961 - page 384
• 1962 - page 409 (two)

The situation in the French Defense is similarly stale. I counted nine references to 1958, one (!) to 1959, and later than that only three. And again, only the reference on page 293 to Stockholm 1960 (i.e. the three-team tournament in January or possibly February) is in the theoretical "Practical Variations":

• 1960 - pages 293, 309, 316

@FreeRepublic - Thanks for directing me to that Byrne - Smyslov game.  It's a bit odd for me to see Smyslov playing Black in a Winawer game.  I guess I tend to think of him being a champion for the White side due to his games against Botvinnik in the 40s and 50s.

I happen to have Chess Openings - Theory and Practice, which was published in 1964.  There's no mention of 7...Bd7 8. Bd3, let alone the reply 8...c4.  Perhaps Horowitz wasn't aware of recent developments since a database search shows Uhlmann enjoying some success with 7...Bd7 in the early 60s.  Perhaps his results popularized that move because by 1975, it was covered by John Moles in his The French Defence - Main Line Winawer.  In fact, Moles describes 7...Bd7 as "favoured by Uhlmann".  It's in Moles' book that 8.Bd3 is given a ?! marking.  Gligoric's The French Defence from RHM Press also came out in 1975 and likewise gives 8.Bd3?!.  It's conceivable that Byrne's win changed the evaluation of 8.Bd3 (as you noted) since the first edition of Play the French in 1984 simply gives 8.Bd3 with no dubious marking.