Originally posted by TeshuvahNo, I have never enjoyed facing it. However I always played the 3 ... c5 variations. I have recently taken up the 3 .. Nf6 and the positions are much more reminiscient of other french variations.
I know two people other than myself otb who play the french in response to e4. They both hate the tarrasch as well.
Zebano is not a fan of it either if I recall correctly.
I dont mind facing it.
I started studying weyerstass' and his games vs the tarrash variation.
He crushes it for the most part. =)
To the OP... why do you need to blunt the french? The only reason to play the exchange is to get a draw. Other than that by move three you have set up a game where both white and black have equal chances.
c4 ala panov-botvinik is not threatening in this case. Oddly enough in the CK, Panov-Botvinik Attack black ends up with a pawn on e6 which slows the development of the light squared bishop. In the french exchange, the pawn is on c6, so the bishop is fine. Oddly enough, this is backward of all other Caro/French lines (usually french = bad bishop, CK = bishop is fine).
Originally posted by zebanoIt's had top level play though, Zebano - although I dread using him as an example, Josh Waitzkin employed it quite a bit.
To the OP... why do you need to blunt the french? The only reason to play the exchange is to get a draw. Other than that by move three you have set up a game where both white and black have equal chances.
c4 ala panov-botvinik is not threatening in this case. Oddly enough in the CK, Panov-Botvinik Attack black ends up with a pawn on e6 which slows the de ...[text shortened]... s is backward of all other Caro/French lines (usually french = bad bishop, CK = bishop is fine).
Originally posted by TeshuvahSo what?
I started studying weyerstass' and his games vs the tarrash variation.
He crushes it for the most part. =)
Michael Adam's record with the tarrasch variation, as white in the chessgames.com collection, is phenomenal. So I'm giving it a try.
53 wins 9 losses 24 draws
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.[WORD TOO LONG]
I don't have a high regard for the advance variation.
The Tarrasch seems to be a solid middle ground between the lame exchange and agressive winawer variations.
Why do people have this misconception about the French. The French at the top levels is a counterattacking, very sharp system. I mean think about it. Black concedes space in the center, and just tries to burn the whole thing down in any way possible. He has to play actively or else he will just be left with a cramped position and a crap bishop on c8. Although a bunch of chickens play it at lower levels to try not to get mated. 😀
Originally posted by cmsMasterwhats wrong with John Watson, I love the man, he's written a great french book and two great strategy books and gives great book reviews at jeremysilman.com
It's had top level play though, Zebano - although I dread using him as an example, Josh Waitzkin employed it quite a bit.
Originally posted by UbersuckFinally some reason in this futile thread. There are no surprises for the prepared French player.
French Defense ain't been blunted by anybody yet, last I heard. That's why the big boys still play it.
I play the French because I once hated it with the white pieces. Although ideas such as the exchange, the Tarrasch, the KIA, and Qe2 present some novelty to some unprepared French players, 3.Nc3 still gives white better chances of victory than the alternatives. If you want to gain decent results against the French, you might as well prepare yourself for the Winawer, the Classical, and the Burn and Rubinstein variations.
Try the 5.Bd2 variation of the Winawer:
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.Bd2 many black players don't understand the consequences of cxd (Ne7 is much better) 6.Nb5!. In some variants, white does not even need to take back the pawn on d4 and simply plays for a kingside attack.
Also, you avoid the swamp of (very interesting) variations of the 5.a3 mainline.