A long time ago, I posted a game I played using a weird second move, f4, when I felt my opponent was intending to play a French (or French like defense). There's a couple of game using this move order on that post.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/annexing-territory

~~~I posted a game where I played 1) e4 e6 & 2) f4, in response to my opponents move because I thought they were going to play d5, the French Defense, not knowing what the opening was; then someone questioned the soundness of the move & another mentioned that it was actually a real opening called the Anti-French or De LaBourdonnais-McDonnell Attack (vs the French). Anyway, I play that move|opening when I think my opponent wants to play the French; so I have been learning more about it the more I play it. The Anti-French is very positional in actual game play from what I can gather and I am not a very good positional player; I am more of a tactical player more than positional (I tend to the on that side of the equation). Even so, I find the De LaBourdonnais-McDonnell Attack (Anti-French) very interesting and I am not sure if any pro out there actually uses this opening; if you know, please let me know because I need more games to study from using this particular opening. Here's a recent game that I played after "realizing" that this opening is more positional and that I should not be going for my normal attacking setup that I would normally use with my other games. Any comments would be appreciated...the game got a little complicated in the middle game after each side had castled and my opponent made a blunder to lose the game.

~~~

~~~

Let me know what you guys think of the Anti-French and if you know of a player that uses it so I can study their games. Thanks!

Interesting game - your opponent certainly did mess up with the middle-game and you made him pay. I've tried 2.f4 against the French myself a few times - but my opponents have always continued with 2...c5, so I transposed into the Grand Prix. The Kenilworth Chess Club website has a few example games on their site if you're interested in looking further into it.

I don't understand how this is anti-french. Black can just follow up with 2. ... d5 and expect a game very similar to the advance. White's best is usually to play c3 and d4 at some point and transpose. 

The real anti-French:

Arctor has it. there is nothing a french player hates more than 3. exd5 ... *rageface*

 My opponent chose to decline playing d5 on his second move; you are right he could have done that and that was what I was totally expecting playing the f4 move on my second turn. I hate playing against the French Defense because it usually ends up in a "close" position where I prefer an "open" position with lots of tactics. Anyway, if you click on the link I have with another forum I started a while back, it has a couple of game using this tactic/set-up to counter a French Defense or French Defense like set-up Black might want to employ. I am by no means an expert; I am a mediocre player that enjoys reading more than anything. So I read pretty much anything and everything; sometimes, that includes chess "stuff". Anyway, I suggest for people who do not like playing against the French D to research this Anti-French or De LaBourdonnais-McDonnell Attack. I was learning about the Bird Opening (1. f4) and got interested in other openings using the f4 pawn early. Anyway, sorry if you don't like the opening or if you don't think it's Anti anything but I do have fun playing against the French now, unlike before.

I have played the French for a long time and these anti-French ideas are not bad. And, because they are not very usual, they can catch the French player off guard. 2. b3, 2. f4, 2. c4 and 2. Qe2 are not to be taken lightly.

And, from experience, I can tell you that the Exchange variation is nothing to be feared. White blows out the central tension on move 3 and usually drifts into the middlegame, because he thinks he's entitled to an easy draw. I seldom see these end in draws.

Most good french players love when white plays the exchange. Why not? they are gifted a good game on move 3, and even if it's not the sort of position they wanted, nobody can really find difficult to play such a simple simmetrical position. As far as i know a common topic for conversation among french defense players is to boast about how huge their plus score is against the exchange.

 I don't see any reason Black should not be happy with equality by move 3, although that doesn't mean much if you ask me because it is after all only move 3; BTW, I am only speculating because I am not an expert and I don't really know anything about the Exchange Variation of the French Defense.

I think it's more accurate to call 2.f4 "anti-usual French". Certainly black can still play 2...d5 and if white tries the advance 3.e5, then ...c5 is good for black, maybe better than with white's pawn on d4........ I am also fascinated by early f-pawn advances. When playing black you can try the analogous idea ...f5!? in a number of openings. Of course there's the Latvian Gambit. But there's also the Rousseau Gambit in the Giuoco Piano (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5) and the Gianutio Countergambit against the King's Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 f5).

so symmetry = equality? then why isnt the petroff the most common defense? because its BORING x) although i agree that yes the exchange likely still favours black as the french player probably has way more experience in this particular symmetrical position than white, however i'd rather lose a game than play a boring game. honestly. *and my rating suffers but so what?* 

edit: thought i'd comment on the actual topic of this thread- 2. f4, doesnt this typically just transpose into a steinitz french? doesnt seem too troublesome.

b3nnyhaha: "I'd rather lose a game than play a boring game."  .... You realize, of course, you could do both: play a boring game and lose it.

No, simmetrycal positions can range from dead equal to much better for one side. In the exchange french not much is going on and so the extra move is pretty worthless. In the petroff there are 2 pawns en prise and the prospects of an early clasch between the two forces, so it's natural to expect that the side with the move might have some prospects of an advantage. After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5?! instead the position is symmetrical but quite sharp and it's natural to expect quite some advantage for white. To sum it up the only certainty in a symmetrical position is that black is not better :)

@melvin well yes, but sometimes thats unavoidable yes?

@bresando i was making an absurd statement to question hammerschlag's claim the exchange french equals instant equality.

The move 2...b6 apparently has a bit of a history. This website's Game Explorer has a game, Steinitz-Blackburne, 1883, where the same position as in post #1 is reached by transposition: 1.e4 e6 2.e5 (the Steinitz attack) b6 3.f4 Bb7. It's a strange game, at least by today's standards.....

 I said this? I don't remember doing so. Oh well...I thought I said I wasn't an expert at the Exchange Variation of the French Defense.

 No. I call it a King's Gambit posted in the wrong thread...... Sorry.... . . .  .    .