4.Nbd2 = FD Tarrasch variation with 3...c5 - C07 in ECO
4.e5 Nc6 5.c3 = FD Advance Variation - which like the Winawer should be called the Nimzovitch Variation but I guess he already has too many variations named after him as it is LOL!
Make sure you don't mind playing with an isolated QP if you play this line. You'll develop your pieces easily - but you'll be stuck defending an isolated Q-Pawn for a long time.
Sorry I mean I'm black
So is there a way to play French in a different order just to avoid the exchange variation? I don't particually like the French exchange for black...
Star, are you afraid of an isolated pawn?
I have yet to find a weakness after:
I'm not sure why people fear isolated pawns. Where did the phobia come from?
I would be glad to have one as it is obviously winning.
I'm saying as black not white...
Thanks for the comments and suggestions
Like I was thinking of playing the sicilian french, but different with d5. I don't know whether this is good for black or not.
I like closed positions. Lock it in. It'll win for black.
Like I was thinking of playing the sicilian french, but different with d5. I don't know whether this is good for black or not.
I like closed positions. Lock it in. It'll win for black.
Win for black?
That is French Advanced varitation. It is line...
King, locking in the position is a mistake.
An open position would be winning for white.
I posted computer analysis if you wish to check.
An isolated pawn is not always a mistake. It can be very advantageous in certain situations.
As Pfren has pointed out, taking the pawn gives white a huge advantage.
This is faulty analysis.
Sorry I wasn't so clear what I wanted to avoid...
Does this have a name?
I fail to see Black's idea after 4.ed5.
Could you elaborate?
Black does not mind playing an IQP if white has committed himself to Nbd2,
So the Tarrasch Defence in the QGD is bad?
Blessed Star, http://www.chess.com/opening/eco/C01_French_Defense_Exchange_Variation_Monte_Carlo_Variation
Looks like the Panov Botvinnik attack of the Caro Kann but with black missing the c pawn, not the e pawn.
Blessed Star, http://www.chess.com/opening/eco/C01_French_Defense_Exchange_Variation_Monte_Carlo_Variation
Looks like the Panov Botvinnik attack of the Caro Kann but with black missing the c pawn, not the e pawn.
So is there a way to avoid this? Like playing in a different move order?
I fail to see Black's idea after 4.ed5.
Could you elaborate?
Black does not mind playing an IQP if white has committed himself to Nbd2, or c3. Here there arew no such annoyances for him, and 4.ed5 ed5 5.Bb5+ (or just 5.Nc3) leave white with an easy advantage.
Quite so - my question is: why would Black try to avoid the Exchange Variation in the first place? White practically gives him equality from the start.
Alekhine, Nimzowitsch, and Spielmann all expressed the opinion that Black might even be better, although that seems a stretch.
I am happy with the exchange variation except for one line I don't like playing which is http://www.chess.com/opening/eco/C01_French_Defense_Exchange_Variation_Monte_Carlo_Variation for black
Transposes into a QGA but the e pawns are missing. That is a very big difference. Plus black has no centre pawns at all. It seems a bit risky for me.
You could probably try this plan on the exchange french
By moving Ne7 you can play f6 in case white tries to play bg5.Then you could exchange the light squeared bishops by playing Bf5 and then develop your knight accordingly
Oh ok thanks prfen I wasn't aware of that line.
Why would you want to avoid the exchange? It justs gifts black more or less complete equality.
Like I was thinking of playing the sicilian french, but different with d5. I don't know whether this is good for black or not.