exchange lines aside, the caro kahn is picturesque compared to the french. French is messy, chaotic and rebels in asymmetries all over. The Caro kahn is like a drivers instruction manual The bf5 main lines read like a self help book and some of the other lines like the tartakower almost mock you with their theoretical equality.
This is the notion I'm trying to cure here. Petrosian rejected the Bf5 idea, opting instead for Bg4 followed by an exchange on f3, or else keeping the light square bishop on its starting square and attacking the white center like a delayed French Defense. The C-K is a full tempo slower than the French Defense, and the only virtue that has is that white has to commit to a plan in the center more completely.
Black is wasting this feature of the C-K by playing Bf5 - yes the bishop is "out", but it has no other pieces to coordinate with. In the Tal Variation (which I play as white against the C-K), that "developed" bishop becomes an immediate target which allows white to gain more tempo and cripple black's kingside development (it's black's dark-square bishop the often proves useless in this line). The C-K player doesn't need to provide white with such a target, and when I play the C-K myself, I don't. In the lines I play, the center usually explodes in a manner at least as chaotic as any French Defense, which makes for sharp, exciting play.
Too many low-amateurs use the C-K as a way to lose slowly but surely. It doesn't work like the security blanket it has a reputation for being. You have to strike back in the center to stand any chance as black. Development without piece coordination is often just as bad as lack of development.
exchange lines aside, the caro kahn is picturesque compared to the french. French is messy, chaotic and rebels in asymmetries all over. The Caro kahn is like a drivers instruction manual The bf5 main lines read like a self help book and some of the other lines like the tartakower almost mock you with their theoretical equality.