Playing Black, I find it easy to play, that I come out with an equal/slight disadvantage, and that it can be a bit dull. I also used to play the Fort Knox variation, which I found the same. However, the alternative, be it the Steinitz/McCutcheon route, the Steinitz/Classical/Alekhine-Chatard route, or the Winawer involve lots of theory. Hence, I have yet to solve the Nc3 problem, and the only redeeming feature of this dilemma is that at my rating (1566 FIDE OTB), Nc3 is not seen as often as it could/should(?) be.
French Defence - Rubinstein Variation
Sort:
I used to play the French Winawer and would transpose to the Rubinstein when confronted with the Tarrasch. I found the variation to be too passive for my tastes and it often seemed that I was a tempo behind schedule in being able to repel white's attacks. In the hands of a better player, however, the Rubinstein has a reputation for easy equalization.
pfren wrote:
6.Bd3 is supposed to be more testing- e.g. this is the move suggested by Negi in his latest GM series repertoire book. I think Black is quite fine- the critical line goes
Here Negi focuses on Meier's pet move 12...Qc7, while Pelletier has played many games with 12...Qb6, but the less tried Vitugov suggestion of 12...Qa5!? may be best. After analysing the last move at some depth I was unable to find something tangible for white.
Yes I agree, I'd be happy to play that as Black. In fact the 6. Bd3 line was the one that I came up against in that tournament game I mentioned before, and I was fine out of the opening. Although I admit that was more due to inaccuracies from both sides rather than any theoretical battle!
What's your opinion on the 7. c3 line? Seems like that's also quite a strong option for White.
(Diagram in case anyone needs it!):
the langrokk book is available on the forwardchess e reader too, which works well(though I cant vouch for the book, im still wading through watson and moskalenko on the french)
pfren wrote:
Yes, this is a line attributed to Kasparov. Black just needs to know what he's doing.
Langrock does analyse this, giving Degraeve- Sumets as an example. Almost all games from that position ended in a draw, I think Black just has to be a little bit careful and not allow a bind with a4-a5 and Bb6, or a white rook doubling on the d-file. And of course he should also be a bit careful and not exchange everything, since the 3:2 queenside majority king ending is known since ages to be extremely problematic for Black.
Thanks for the analysis, that's a useful line to know! Although like you said Black just needs to know the risks of allowing a king and pawn ending with this structure, as well as White's potentially stronger grip on the e-file. But with a bit of technique I can't see this being a problem.
Does seem like it'd be hard to play for a win though, but I guess that comes with the territory.
Fiveofswords wrote:
white has lots of things he can do. despite the fact that im happy to use queenside majority endgames a great deal in various openings ive actually had luck with a completely different 7th move for white which has not been named at all. i think its unlikely that someone playing black could have memorized everything to the point that he has equality because this will take many moves. white has a typical small center advantage and it is quite stable.
You're right White does have a few options but none of them particularly intimidating. However I disagree with your second statement - the attraction of this line is that Black isn't required to have memorised all the lines that lead to equality. The position lends itself to logical moves and plans with still a bit of scope to outplay the opponent. He just needs to be a bit careful as there are a few traps he can fall into. In fact the reason I've started playing this rather than the main line Tarrasch is that involved a lot more memorisation and tricky double-edged positions, which White is also likely to be well prepared for.
Also do you care to share your 7th move novelty with us? ;)
Against the 7c3 it might be a rare case of being more comfortable avoiding the principled 7...c5, in favour of developing with 7...Be7,0.0 and usually b6 before c5. c3 doesn't seem very dangerous then.
The mentioned new book based around Rubinstein, covers bd7,a6, Bb5 which I thought IM Pfren liked, or at least mentioned quite often, or is it just the coverage he doesn't like?
Ah, ok thanks, I didn't understand the difference in the Advance lines.
Will checkout the 7c3 be7 line too because thought Vitugov considered it in his "French Reloaded" book.
In the 6Bd3 line Speelman and others were playing a e5 pawn sac for black. Are these still valid, or white playing move orders to avoid it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33140-2004Aug1.html
Interesting thread
An excellent repertoire book on the French Rubinstein...
"French Defense: The Solid Rubinstein Variation" by Hannes Langrock...
https://www.amazon.com/French-Defense-Solid-Rubinstein-Variation/dp/1941270050/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496292962&sr=1-1&keywords=french+defense+rubinstein
(Just recognized that this book was mentioned earlier by IMpfren)...
the Rubinstein is a very solid way and in general players below the elite level tend to be less prepared as in the main lines. the reason is that White doesn't risk to be really worse. But on the other hand if black is well prepared there also doesn't seem to be any significant advantage for white. Still maybe a little bit easier to play for white. hope this is helpful
The 4....Qd5 line looks interesting, a less solid way of playing, looks like a scandi hybrid
"... These early ...dxe4 systems have been gaining popularity in the French (especially since they can be reached via a Tarrasch move-order). Basically, Black concedes an opening advantage to White (who has more space and a small lead in development) in exchange for a very solid position. These positions were well summarized by French expert GM Nigel Short, when he said 'White hardly need take any risks and, if the opportunity presents itself, he can push for more.' ..." - IM Sam Collins (2005)
The May 2017 issue of Chess lists the top twenty openings compiled from a list of 1810 March games where both players were rated over 2400 Elo. One can not take position on this list too seriously because it is greatly influenced by how the openings are grouped. For example, all the Retis are grouped together, while English is separated into 1...c5, 1...e5, etc. Nevertheless, for what it is worth, some of the list entries are: 117 Retis, 83 King's Indians, 79 Slavs, 78 Nimzo-Indians, 75 1 d4 Nf6 sidelines, 71 declined Queen's Gambits, 65 Najdorf Sicilians, 64 Caro-Kanns, 47 Tarrasch Frenches, 45 1 d4 d5 sidelines, 43 Closed Ruy Lopezes, 42 Classical Gruenfelds, 40 1...c5 Englishes, 40 Queen's Indians, 37 1...e5 Englishes, 37 Kan Sicilians, 35 2 Nf3 d6 sideline Sicilians, 35 Berlin Ruy Lopezes, 33 1...e6 Englishes, and 29 1...Nf6 Englishes
My decision to choose the rubinstein was simple. It gives me a sound pawn structure and avoids some of the potential weaknesses that can occur in the tarrasch and or answer. White usually gives up their bishop for the f6 knight which does no significant damage at all. Open game which requires rapid development which is easily achievable. From what I've seen in the range of 700-2300 on chess.com is that white regularly wastes a few tempo going down sidelines that actually gives black the initiative. In the variations that give white a slight edge that's only a computer edge meaning the human still has to be good tactically, middlegame wise and has to have good endgame technique. I see a lot of mistakes made even by 2000+ that shows they dont have a solid understanding of the french defense in general.
These lines are incredible. Following. Can we move 1...d6 and still transpose to the Rubinstein?
ArubanRefugee wrote:
These lines are incredible. Following. Can we move 1...d6 and still transpose to the Rubinstein?
No because d6 will put you behind 1 tempo and it can transpose but you will probably fall way too behind with the loss of the tempo
PawnRaider1936 wrote:
ArubanRefugee wrote:
These lines are incredible. Following. Can we move 1...d6 and still transpose to the Rubinstein?
No because d6 will put you behind 1 tempo and it can transpose but you will probably fall way too behind with the loss of the tempo
Yes it seems this requires so much accuracy. Thanks.
StupidGM wrote:
PawnRaider1936 wrote:
My decision to choose the rubinstein was simple. It gives me a sound pawn structure and avoids some of the potential weaknesses that can occur in the tarrasch and or answer. White usually gives up their bishop for the f6 knight which does no significant damage at all. Open game which requires rapid development which is easily achievable. From what I've seen in the range of 700-2300 on chess.com is that white regularly wastes a few tempo going down sidelines that actually gives black the initiative. In the variations that give white a slight edge that's only a computer edge meaning the human still has to be good tactically, middlegame wise and has to have good endgame technique. I see a lot of mistakes made even by 2000+ that shows they dont have a solid understanding of the french defense in general.
The Rubinstein requires extremely precise play for both sides, and White has several options which lead to +0.40 or more like +0.25 if the computers had a longer horizon (0.00 if they solve the game). Black has many excellent plans at his disposal, but here we have the opposite problem of people who avoid theory, namely those who do NOT avoid theory, and get a dull, dry, persistent edge that most players hate to face.
With that said, the other lines of the French (particularly the Trash) require even more preparation. I chose the Rubenstein because ChessGenius (my engine at the time) loved the opening, and it's very "engine-like" in that there are several seemingly equal moves, territory in which the machines thrive. I want to learn how to play like Stockfish so I enter the mind of the engine with lines like this.
I hope that you do read to develop your understanding of the game as well and dont rely solely on a computer. But yes, in my study ive come across about 10 moves that given almost any situation would be considered candidate. Its funny to me because it is actually white ive found that has to play even more precise than black. Especially if white castles queenside and tries to go on the attack it almost always ends in disaster. Ive had several games with 2000+ who went on attacks after castling queenside that lost the game for them horribly
What are people's thoughts on this variation? Seems the general consensus is that Black reaches a slightly worse but very solid position, while avoiding a ton of theory.
The main attraction I see is that you can play it against 3. Nf3 and 3. Nd2, the main lines of which can usually end up being pretty theoretical and sharp. So if you prefer fairly quiet/solid positions it seems like a good choice.
I tried it in my most recent OTB tournament (as Black) and was actually a bit better out of the opening, only to blow it by over-pushing on the kingside...