Any good weapons against the french?

I was checking your profile’s front page nvm

something happened here when i slept lol

responding to stuff:

#100 (page 5)

nope

analysis boards are within the rules and wont get you a ban, anywhere

(chess.com literally provides them smh)

dont project YOUR opinion as some objective truth if it isnt true

by reading this whole thing, i think that #130 (page 7) sums it up the best

100% theory 0% skill is bad, and being hated on by 8thMarch

0% theory 100% skill is still bad, but less bad, and advocated by 8thMarch

some mix of the two is better, and "exponentially harder" by 8thMarch

but... it is very possible, and not exponentially

linearly, at worst

natural talent (which you already are asking for) + just some memorisation skills

oh right

memorisation + understanding (which is gotten, by increasing knowledge!)

and also, 8thMarch just ignores some good counterarguments, by not even contradicting them lol

anyway, #105 (page 6)

they do use theory AND understanding

both can be combined

this is like asking "should a child be good at studies or sports" why not both

they go on to ignore good counterarguments and whatever they respond to is either a kinda dumb comment or they dont even contradict it

then they go on to make weird comparisions which are just wrong (#125)

the 90% theory 90% skill person (who everyone else is talking about, while 8thMarch ignores them) isnt metaphorically obese

they are metaphorically in good shape, and they have learnt some tactics of basketball while theyre at it

the 0% theory 100% skill person is metaphorically in perfect shape, but has no idea about any tactics in basketball

i go for the former in this comparision, and frog is right for ignoring yours, as it is irrelevant

and assuming (#108) that chess players will somehow stop using theory is wrong

what if the future basketball player knew nothing about basketball, beyond the rules, and are just mega fit

wont happen right? so wont this

#113, better than theory doesnt exist

you are underestimating theory, in most places it is probably perfect

and if not, and someone plays better, then thats just added to theory

and also, chasing good positions without prep makes no sense lol

if you have no prep, you have to think, on like move 3, about what type of game you want, and what move will give it to you

and if youre just like "ok i already know that" oops thats called prep

you have to have literally no knowledge that e4 leads to fighting positions usually or whatever, literally none

good luck getting to a good position with that

#115 is a confusing comparision again

#117 aah but what if youre playing xx move because you remember it did you well somewhere else

oops thats prep

you have to literally forget every single previous game if you want to avoid prep which is a bad habit apparently (100% prep 0% skill people are very bad, but no one is saying that they are good)

#126 then the addition will sometime be added to theory!

obv we cant go to the end, but theory is good and any better move found in the opening will surely be added

#133

why are you comparing it to alcohol

lets compare it to coffee/tea instead!

so, yes, drinking those two too much will be bad, but these people are doing it at a reasonable level, where it helps them

(also btw too much of literally every food is toxic, it just gets to insane levels for the good foods)

then some stuff about 14 day rateds (#140ish)

umm, they dont need to prove their point by playing games coz no one is actually having opposite opinions

8thMarch: " 100% theory 0% skill is bad"

everyone else: "90% theory 90% skill is good"

these two can coexist yknow?

so then this challenge is just some random challenge, stripped from its background (coz those are just argumentatively wrong) which frog or others dont need to accept

and frog is saying that 90% theory 90% skill is good but then 8thMarch is saying "no it isnt, where could i have lost to it"

frog never said that theory makes people win, they just said that it is good (even though 8thMarch is saying that a completely different thing is bad)

then #154 is just #130 again, so many people came up with the correct argument, which is ignored by 8thMarch

#156 is again talking about pure prep no skill, coz if not then its wrong (90% of both IS good)

then #158 is "oh how dare you have an opinion you coward" which is just stupid

then #163.... how much ever i have an open mind... no hes just morally wrong and deserves everything

i mean, using wealth to decide literally anything about an argument is wrong, i think

(if you know a few wrong things and no right things about a person, they are probably bad)

#164 is again a weird request for a game to solve an argument where no one disagrees

#175 is "i win without theory so how could literally anyone else win more with theory than without"

prolly more "0% skill 100% theory" arguments when everyone else is saying "90% of both is good"

basically

we wasted like 5 pages on an argument where no one disagrees with each other

all theory no skill is bad

90% of both is good

case closed, now let this thread be about the french defense (or the real french idk lol)

sorry in advance for anyone reading that, its just 86 new comments need a long response if i want to even come close to a normal depth of argument

Ye. Learning theory doesn’t immediately make you a worse player. It makes you a better one smh

What should I do about the winawer

Play the mainline ig

"i guess"

"not gonna lie"

“I guess” “not gonna lie!

I like playing the advanced French, where you push the pawn to e5. There's a lot of good YouTube videos on it.

agaisnt the winawer, play the exchange and qf3 , likely castling 0-0-0 , black is not getting the game he wants and the bishop looks silly on b4.

agaisnt the regular french ,two knights is a great knockout weapon for lower rated players, almost anyone below expert , the odds of falling into one of its traps is high. 

playing trap/hope chess is not a great way to become better

True, but there are lines where a natural move is a blunder and a forcing trap can be immediately played (the good traps, an example being black playing e5 against the Bg5 Najdorf)- but there are also lines where the initiating side gives up any chance of an advantage just for the possibility of the opponent falling into a trap (the bad traps, an example being the Englund Gambit)

ok

but how does white play agianst blacks best move, d4?

hmm

hope chess is basically "if my opponent doesnt see what my plan is, i win; if not, i lose" which is just bad

and you literally sound like a flat earther, but i digress

now on a serious note

good trap openings are the ones where even if they dont fall into it your position is decent

bad trap openings are the ones where if they dont fall into it, your position is horrible and you lose

i sound like a flat earther?

your mind is really closed tight shut with all these ridiculous theories about how playing good moves because you thought about it is good but playing good moves because you did prep is not good because it damages your brain when literally no one has ever thought in such a way

all that people have said is that theory is damaging the game and making it boring but not that it is damaging peoples brains

it is literally just a way to play the opening (which every good player uses) but you dismiss it for no reason using stupid theories like "you stop being able to think creatively, why? PREP" (i thiink this is what your peripheral vision stuff was about)

why? is the brain so full it stops being able to function properly? does the very concept of prep damage ones brain somehow? did prep gain sentience and become a bacteria/ virus?

people can think creatively while using prep

and btw, what sort of bias is prep

definition of bias:

prejudice for or against a person/group... no

a distortion of a statistical result?? no

ok 

you are either saying that prep makes one racist/sexist/ something else in those lines which is ludicrous

or that prep distorts our brain in such a way that we start dismissing moves? or something?

why is the word bias even here...

you are comparing prep to flat earthers

i am not sure a single other person agrees with you even

meanwhile, anyone with half a brain knows that the earth isnt flat

why is prep harming ones brain

you said this, multiple times, as just a fact that everyone knows

i am here to say that everyone definitely does not know

so, you have to explain

if that leads us to neurology, thats fine; i just need you to explain how prep harms ones brain

yeah it is a novel concept to be stupid and ignore thousands of hours worth of study

say, did you go through better players' matches in all those games, or anything similar

did you, by happenstance, use tactics that others used; or anything similar

and btw, you are winning because you are a better player and just were underrated, started too low

thats the obvious, and the only conclusion

and btw if you want to open this to the world, go open a topic in the general subforum and lets see how that goes

call it something like "prep harms your brain" with the first post explaining your thoughts

i would be genuinely interested to see such a topic

chess theory is documented/explored move(s) in a position in chess

often times theory helps you find the moves that should be played in the positon, and it often helps you find the plans in the opening so you know what your doing

you want every single player to reinvent the wheel

remember, every single game of chess begins the same way

not true of other games