So I may be wending my way to virtual equality with the move order 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7, and also I may have found a new(?) way for Black to navigate the Winawer/Armenian to virtual equality as well!  When and if I do that, I will post it to a thread on the Armenian I started over a decade ago.  GM Kosten's eyeballs and take on it should be interesting

Side note, I'm going to modify a Go program I wrote maybe 5 years ago, to drill into my idea in the Armenian, and at each ply invoking to Stockfish for its eval, to a depth of my choice (probably 40, depends on how my hardware processes it, possibly a bit more even -- it will be configurable)

MartinC wrote on 11/24/25 at 08:41:10:

MartinC - That's a perceptive observation. It's not hard for that space advantage to morph into an overextended position.

I'm reminded of an old Foxy Video by Daniel King covering the French where he went through his game as Black in a French Advance vs. Chris Ward (Gausdal 1993). White played an aggressive g2-g4-g5, which pushed back Black's pieces but backfired when met by King's ...f6 pawn break and subsequent exchange sac. In his video, King likened White's position to an over-inflated balloon.  Once it popped and those overextended kingside pawns were gone, there was a vacuum that was filled by Black's invading pieces.

To paraphrase Stan Lee, "With great space comes great responsibility."

The OP posed the question about the French being held in disregard, but my impression, admittedly not rigorously derived, is that the defense is enjoying a bit of a revival nowadays. Rather than being just an occasional surprise reserved for blitz or rapid, it seems to be played at least a bit by some top GMs in classical events such as Norway Chess (Erigaisi's games vs Wei Yi and Caruana) and the Sinquefeld Cup (three games by Aronian). MartinC has already mentioned Ding Liren's use of the French in his two World Championship matches. Matthias Blübaumn, who has qualified for the Candidates, includes the French in his Black repertoire.

As MartinC noted in Reply #1, engines have actually rehabilitated numerous opening lines, including some in the French that were formerly thought to be refuted or unplayable, such as the Armenian Variation (...Ba5 in the Winawer) mentioned by the OP. The old approach of responding to Qg4 with play analogous to the Winawer Poison Pawn remains under a cloud.  However, as MartinC and I discussed in another thread:

https://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1380429314/26

Dreev and Basso's Modern Chess database presents an engine-derived idea of guarding the g7-pawn with ...Kf8, which has proven to be viable, even if the engine's preferred follow-up of ...f6, striking White's center (while also opening up the black king!) seems suicidal. Apparently the concrete lines work out OK for Black, but as noted by posters on that thread, the play isn't especially human-like.

As MartinC and FreeRepublic have indicated in their replies, Stockfish hasn't "killed" the French. In working with this engine in analyzing various French positions, I get the impression that it puts a high value on White's space advantage.  It's common to see Stockfish evaluate a position as solidly ⩲, while Leela will consider it equal or close to equal. Leela could be viewed as upholding its evaluation in a game against Stockfish from an engine competition that John Watson analyzes in his February 2025 French Update on ChessPublishing. Although Stockfish must have loved the space advantage conferred by White's massive pawn center in the 5.f4 variation of the 3...Nf6 French Tarrasch, Leela, playing Black, "held nicely" in Watson's words, despite being under some pressure. Watson also made a suggestion for Black in this game, and when I investigated it further, I encountered the phenomenon described by FreeRepublic in Reply #2: playing Stockfish's top move for both sides resulted in the ⩲ evaluation eventually dwindling to near equality.

One thought nags at me: I recall Matthew Sadler writing somewhere that Stockfish's favoritism toward space isn't merely a stylistic preference. Space is a real advantage, just like, e.g., the bishop pair. While this seems like a reversion to Tarrasch's 19th century doctrine, obviously a serious lack of space can be quite deleterious. Perhaps it's simply a matter of degree: whether or not the cramped side has sufficient room to maneuver effectively enough to generate counterplay and freeing pawn breaks.

I think at some point players have to ask themselves how seriously to take computer evaluations.

For starters, I would ignore evaluations too early in the game, for example after 1e4. I generally don't turn on the engine until after I have run out of human opening theory. This would be the mid to late opening, depending on how deep theory extends, or the early middle game. Also, any time I ask "Why not this move?" might be an occassion for turning on the engine.

Sometimes engines are stubborn in their evaluations, then suddenly change the evaluation ("recalibrating"), presumably after spotting a new move.

Engines often revise their evaluations downwards as in "and black equalizes."

It sometimes happens that the engine finds equality then, as one plays on, starts to favor white. I have seen that at least once.

If in doubt, turn off the engine. Look at the position. Sometimes a human perspective clarifies matters instantly. If you say to yourself, "I wouldn't mind playing that," you can conclude your analysis session.

As MartinC has pointed out in the past, there are chaotic positions where computer evaluations are not very indicative of likely results between humans.

Authors at ChessPublishing have sometimes mentioned "stable advantage." I think this indicates an advantage that does not depend on every particular move forward.

Perhaps we should also recognize "unstable equality." This might happen when the engine assures you that black is equal, but in fact black must continue to play precisely (and perhaps the same for white).

For grins and giggles, as Black, I decided to deviate from 1...e5 with 1...e6.  I've switched to 1.d4 as White, but might rather transpose into the French as White, after 1...e6 2.e4 (thought I might want to see if 2.c4 f5 3.Nh3!? fits into my anti-Dutch repertoire, 1.d4 f5 2.Nh3).  So I thought I'd have a look from the opponent's perspective.

Oopsie, it seems that White's advantage gradually improves in a lot of lines (including the ...Ba5?! variation of the Winawer I might have liked to have tested out, having posted in these forums in the past, and have gotten grandmaster feedback). That sort of overall improvement for White, across multiple lines, makes me doubt about the entire defense.

I think I may have found a tenable line on moves 3/4, not revealing though of course as this is a game in progress on FICGS, but is the French now in the same sort of disregard as the Modern/Pirc, or is it seemingly worse even?

ALL I WILL SAY: it's a subvariation of the Rubinstein; against the Fort Knox BTW I have found (perhaps someone before me too?) the Qd3 and Bf4 (and 0-0-0) idea, but that's not what I have in mind as Black, but rather something sort of like the Alekhine, but less passive, but still seemingly passive, LOL.  Ok, enough clues