Caro-Kann vs French

hi. it is said that in French Defence the queen bishop gets stuck so Caro- Kann is better, but with Panov- Botvnnic attck in Caro-Kann the queen bishop also gets stuck and the attck is also very powerfull. So which defence is better?

Both are okay. French is a bit easier to play at first, since the typical plans are recurring.

I personally like playing the French more than the Caro-Kann, if this is a poll.

They are very different openings. I play the caro but am also learning the French in an attempt to start playing more tactical openings in my eventual transition to sicilian. The caro is extremely solid and leads to slow positional manoeuvres in most lines. The french is counter-attacking by nature and leads to positions where black normally has a large pawn centre and white has attacking chances on the kingside.

hi. i want to know why are you moving from caro-kann to french and eventually to sicilian.

hi. i have tried to play both caro-kann and french with my friend. somehow i lost my all games when i played caro-kann-i just could not attack and was defending all the time- while results were quite satisfying while i played with french defence as i had attacking chances also in the begning itself.

I am a very defensive player and strive to play as solidly as possible. Caro-Kahn used to be my favorite opening for a long time, but I had to discontinue using it because I found myself in very passive positions too frequently. Additionally, the Caro-Kahn opening often led me to a position where my pawn on the E file often prevented me from mobilizing my minor pieces to protect my castled king. In short, it not only led me to excessively passive positions, but my pawn structure in the center was awkward and impeded my ability to defend my king.I believe this happened because when my D pawn was captured, I recaptured with the C pawn (the Caro-Kahn pawn) and had to advance my E pawn to defend the isolated pawn in the center. However, this did not happen when I played the French defense because I recaptured with my E pawn and then advanced the C pawn to defend my isolated piece. As a result, my E file was vacant and available for me to use as space to mobilize my minor pieces in defense of my castled king.

The above explanation provided specific reasons why Caro-Kahn did not seem to serve the purposes of my defensive strategy. However, in general terms, I would have to say that these deficiencies stemmed from my tendency to concede a great deal of space when playing the Caro-Kahn defense. The Caro-Kahn subtly encourages a passive way of playing because it does not lead to developments of your pieces in the center as much as most well accepted openings do. Because of that, it can seduce you into playing too defensively. However, the French defense immediately develops one of your pawns in the center and immediately gets your mind focused on confronting your opponent in the center. I believe this is one of the main reasons why the Caro-Kahn defense is sometimes referred to as "purely defensive" and the French as "counter attacking". The French defense encourages passive play slightly less.

In general terms, I would have to say that the French defense is to be preferred to the Caro-Kahn unless you know how to avoid awkward and passive positions that are often engendered by the Caro-Kahn or you know how to play the latter without becoming overly passive. Altogether, I'd say that the French defense is less likely to lead to tactically awkward positions that can be swiftly exploited by an aggressively minded opponent.

I play the French quite often but have never heard that black ever castles queenside (except in the exchange variation to break symmetry and play for a win) ... the classical French is all about queenside attack which involves pushing the queenside pawns, so usually one should castle kingside or not at all (which isn't as bad as in other openings because the uncastled king on e8 is defended by the "bad bishop"  on d7, while the kingside rook can often be brought into play via opening the f file)

I might be totally wrong about this, but why would you castle kingside if white's plan is to attack the kingside?

Despite some easy plans for beginners, the French is a very rich and complex

opening  that continues to evolve.  

Not castling  or going Qside in the French is  indeed a possible strategem.

Hugh- in the French, your pawn chain (as black) will sometimes point towards the queenside while white's will point towards the kingside. If you castle kingside as black, you will be more free to push your queenside pawns and attack white's queenside. Castling queenside will make this plan (your only form of activity) more dangerous, and may give white a free hand to do as he wishes if you aren't willing to expose your own king. 0-0-0 may be possible in some cases, but it's not commin in the french.

You have a point, but every mainline opening is a tradeoff between different strengths and weaknesses for every side. If you analyze through any main line of the standard openings (except gambit openings) with a computer engine, it will evaluate all positions as roughly 0 or equal. There is no opening that gives one side a definite advantage (if there was, everyone would be playing it :)).

Yes, white's plan is to attack the kingside - the deal in the French is: I, as Black, give you, as White, the opportunity to attack kingside, I'll concentrate on stopping you cold while doing this and break through with my slow queenside attack instead. If I decide to castle queenside, you as White won't bang your head in frustration and think: Oh no, what about my kingside attack plan now? Instead you will launch a relentless attack on my queenside castled and unprotected king. Imagine a classical e4 e5 open position, you have castled kingside (as either colour) and happily push your f, g and h pawns while all the pieces are still on the board ... that's basically the same.