I'm a 14 year old enthusiastic chess player, and recently I purchased Batsford's Modern Chess Openings to further develop my game. It's a great book, and I would recommend it to anyone. It gives the best move in every opening against various moves from the opposite colour. Anyway, I used to be a religious French Defense player, and I especially enjoyed the Winawer, as I see myself as quite an agressive player. But, the obvious disadvantages to the French are the hammed in light squared bishop, the cramped game, and the kingside weakness. And i felt that the time it took me to address these disadvantages, i.e fianchettoing (IF THAT'S A WORD) the light squard bishop, was time that the opponent would use to deliver an attack. Then I found the Sicilian, and I instantly loved it. The prospects of counterplay ere immense on the queenside, and I especially like the dragon, which suited my aggressive style. The openness of the game was also beneficial, as any piece could be developed easily. So, my view: Sicilian beats French. Can anyone think of any advantages of the French over the Sicilian?