Caro-Kann vs. French

I know this has been discussed countless times on many threads. However, I never found a conclusive answer to the question: What are the fundamental differences between the Caro-Kann and French defenses (What kind of middlegames do they lead to, what kind of players enjoy them, amount of theory...)? 

Looking through a few books with French and Caro-Kann sections, I get the feeling that the French section tends to be longer.

http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Understanding_the_Chess_Openings.pdf

In general, the French leads to sharp, imbalanced and exciting middlegames in most variations, famously so in the Winawer. It’s a fighting opening like the Sicilian. The Exchange Variation is not really that drawish.

The Caro-Kann main line is usually quiet, where black avoids committing moves and prefers a slightly passive but very solid position. The Advance Variation of Caro-Kann is slightly more challenging, but black can avoid early conflict by delaying ...c5.

Both are solid defences. IMHO the critical point is the white squares bishop. in french it remains inside the pawn chain, in caro-kann it goes outside. in french, the attack will be in queen flank, in caro-kann i think the main lines are in king flank (please somebody confirms it as i play the french). In french, the castle are many times queen side, in caro-kann it is mainly king side (please, again ask confirmation). the french are similar to sicilian, and may be agressive and sharp (winaver is an example, but not alone), caro-kann more solid and balanced (please confirm). I play french defence since i was young as can be defensive as stone against strong players, but cunning and tricky with several counter-attacks. But is not for the faint-hearted, because the white attack in kingside can be very very strong. The french exchange variation is the most dull, but garantees that white has 0 advantage in opening, at most. my two cents

Indeed. Personally, I have never played the French in my life. The CK has always been my practical defense (the Najdorf being my "boss" line) in daily games. I don't quite agree with some that the French is tactical or "wild". As white, I find it akin to as closed and sterile as the NID. I really don't expect any fireworks. Maybe closer to playing 1. ... d6 openings imo. White seems to have an enduring initiative well into 10-20 moves. The French it seems to me, requires much patience to play; much resourcefulness. Maybe this lends to the perception it is "wild" and imbalanced. Black is forced to make concessions. The Winawer Variation is (to me) the best line. Although the Mainline 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bc3+ 6. bc3 Ne7 7. Qg4 Qc7 is often a subject of debate (as after say, 8. Qg7 Rg8 9. Qh7 cd4 10. Ne2 Nbc6 11. f4 dc3 12. Qd3 d4!? 13. Rb1 Bd7 14. Rg1 0-0-0 15. g4 Be8 Rg3 +=) as white is either a slight plus or balanced. Either way, black almost always has to thread carefully even if he is the one initiating complications (or forced to).

Indeed. It is quite true: Caro Kann players are always looking to trade off their LSB; preferably white's. But, as it happens, trading it for a Knight is pretty common and always good for us too. Our inherent pawn structure is pretty solid in the center & queen side. Keeping everything tight. The c-pawn lever is big with proper timing, leaving e6 as the staunchest defender in the center and not to be willy nilly sacrificed for sake of activity.

Indeed. The CK unleashes ... Bf5 or Bg4 and also gives ... Be7 or Bd6 defensively (as after ... Bf5, ... e6 is often played) as opposed to the French which is predominantly restrictive initially. Even ... c5 attacking white's central pawns doesn't aid in developing either bishop as is most often they are passive or purely defensive. CK players can count on a solid base in the beginning: e6-d5-c6 is hard to crack. Even if CK lines begin with ... de4~the d5 square is solidly in black's camp. An example of "overprotection ". Prophylactic measures on the queenside ensures dynamic play using the "good" bishop + Knights+the temporary control of the light squares by the black Q. Compensation guys. Solid foundation to equalize and eventually fish for something. Dynamic pawn structure+active piece & Queen play marks a CK game. These are fundamental differences; but more importantly, practical real-time differences.

Possibly a consideration:

"... If you choose the Pirc against 1 e4, it makes sense to consider the King's Indian against 1 d4. This is more flexible and will give you additional options later. … Likewise, the Caro-Kann and the Slav fit together, and then you can answer 1 c4 by 1...c6, without having to undertake any additional learning to cope with 2 e4. …" - GM John Nunn (1998)

@najdorf96 what i'd like to ask you as CK player, as i am a french player, is this: do you believe that a french player is similar to a CK one? because, as i see it, the e6 vs c6 change the game and all following lines. I believe that a french player is more close to a sicilian one and a CK player a more classical player. Do you agree?

 

And the dutch is a decent shout for a french defence player looking for something against the rest.

Wow!  Clowns using the basis of what white knows "at their level" as the basis of all logic.  Jesus these people need help!

 

Openings also are not tactical or positional.  You need to have a fundamental understanding of the game, plain and simple.  That includes tactics, strategy, etc.

 

Both the French and Caro-Kann entail Black putting his pawns on light squares.  The same color square as his King starts on.  For this reason, the King tends to be slightly safer here than openings where the fundamental weakness is a light square, such as the Dragon (f7).

One of the main fundamental differences between the French and Caro-Kann is the bad Bishop.  In the French, it is usually bad and inactive, with its main role being to guard the weak e6 pawn.  In return Black is quick to attack the White center with moves like c7-c5 in one go.  Main target is the d4 pawn.

With the Caro-Kann, black is spending a valuable tempo, c7-c6 and soon after that c6-c5, specifically to get the bad bishop outside the pawn chain.

Both openings offer White a space advantage, especially in the advance variation of each opening.  This is why 1...e5 is fundamentally the best move even though it leads to a higher draw ratio.  Both openings have their fundamental issues.  For the French, it is the Bishop on c8.  For the Caro, it is timing and the slowness of Black's Defense that gives white the edge.

You find the Caro easy?  Ok, I play 3.f3!  Show me how easy it is!

Did little_guinea_pig write "easy" or "easier [than the French for little_guinea_pig to play]"? And was it with regard to "most White players at [the level of little_guinea_pig]"?

Indeed. @fonsecaSF It's obviously agreed that our defenses are thematically different, where I would disagree somewhat, is that the French is close in play to Sicilian systems (I'm thinking you're talking about say, the Sicilian Taimanov?) involving 2. ... e6. If only that the CK & Open Sicilians lead with the c-pawn and hold back the e-pawn ... a subtle nuance not readily understood in the beginning outset-more of say the timing & use of tempo. 1. ... c5 immediately challenges the center whereas too; 1. ... c6 reinforces d5 and unleashes the LSB to challenge the center (after 3. Nc3 or Nd2 ... de4), while also keeping ... c6-c5 in mind. In the meantime, methinks, French players arbitrarily needs the ... c5 lever; when by the time they play it, white has set up his position to counter in the center and K-side. Strictly only my opinion & on my experience of course. ✌🏽

The c5-lever is not "arbitrary".  It is a main pawn break that needs to be played in both defenses.  In the Caro-Kann, it takes 2 moves to accomplish as Black tries to make sure that he is able to get the Light-Squared Bishop outside the pawn chain.  French players say screw it, play 1...e6 so that the c-pawn can advance to c5 in one go, and maintaining the Bishop behind the pawn chain makes pushing ...f6 fairly simple because the Bishop can cover the weak e6-pawn.  Yes, believe it or not, Black's weakest pawn on the board in the French Defense is the one he pushed on the first move of the game!

 

As far as comparing to the Sicilian, the only comparison I would make is the combative nature of the French, in comparison to the Sicilian, versus the less combative nature (not going to say "passive") of the Caro-Kann, similar in comparison to the Ruy Lopez.

 

Of the "big 4" responses to 1.e4, many authors tend to group 1...c5 and 1...e6 together, and 1...c6 and 1...e5 together.  This might be where he gets that from.  Look at John Shaw's playing 1.e4.  He puts the Caro-Kann and 1...e5 in one volume, had intended to put the French and Sicilian in the second, but had to break it up, and so it's the French and Sicilian Sidelines in one and Sicilian main lines in the third.

 

People always want to compare the French and Caro-Kann because they are both light-square defenses, unlike say, the King's Indian Defense, which is a dark square defense.  In reality, they are nothing alike (French and Caro-Kann that is).  Color complex is not how openings should be compared.  It should be the type of center that results.  For example, the French Defense shares many features with the King's Indian Defense (hence why I play these two defenses as Black).  Both frequently see a blocked center, and the concept of pawn chains, pawn breaks, and attacking the side of the board in which your pawns point, are all very important.  You don't really see that in the Caro-Kann.  In the French, after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3, Black will play 3...Nf6 or 3...Bb4 to re-threaten e4, enticing White to advance.  In the Caro-Kann, the moment White plays 3.Nc3, Black relieves the tension in the center and trades pawns on e4, not leading to the blocked positions that the French leads to.

Wow! Virtually all of these comments are so well thought out and informative that I cried tears of joy for three hours straight after having to read all kinds of nonsense on this site.

Never played the French myself, but I have large as experience as White. I play Sicilian and CK, whereas the CK is super-solid. Sometimes you'll get a Sicilian afterburner when you play a later c6-c5xd4. 

 

(a bit Sicilian endgame feeling like in this game: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/harry-the-h-pawn-with-a-novelty-in-move-8-found-otb)

Indeed. Weird. It is my opinion that the French is positionally based, strategic in nature. If you have read my posts 6, 7, 8 then okay: one would say, "cool"; black waits for an opportune time to counter-attack. Whether one can say for certainty that black can "press" for a win, as you say, is subjective. Barring outright blunders on white, the French Tarrasch variation & the noted Winawer Poison Pawn is either a slight plus (for white) or unbalanced. A far cry from being to "not risking much". It is this perspective that I can say you're being somewhat hyperbolic: no black defense can ever say it would equalize and then pretend to be able to "press" for advantage. No matter the level where each player is at. I agree with you engine analysis plus experience cannot properly eval a position in its entirety barring GM level but yeah; Cool. It's disingenuous to say the French is vis a vis soo "tricky". White automatically has space, piece play and the initiative for most of the game. If playing the French is deemed "wild & complicated" it is due to mostly white not the black side-and it is far easier playing white no matter what defense is presented. I really am disappointed when I hear such hype, not that yeah, I play the Caro Kann; but to exaggerate a defense; any defense as a silver bullet, without proper context.

Indeed. Very easy methinks. 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. f3[?!] de4 4. fe4 e5 5. Nf3 Be6 6. Bg5 (6. c3 Nf6 7. Nc3 Nbd7 8. 0-0 Bd6 9. Nbd2 0-0 10. Qe1 Re8 with complex play and mutual chances, Czsath-Flesch, Budapest 1967) 6. ... Be7 7. Be7 Qe7 8. Nc3 (8. Ne5 Qh4+ or 8. de5 after 8. ... Nbd7 & 9. ... 0-0-0 =+) 8. ... Bg4[!] 9. Nc3 Nd7 10. d5 Ngf6 11. h3 Bf3 12. Qf3 Nb6 13. Bb3 0-0 14. 0-0-0 Rad8 =

Indeed. Wasting a valuable tempo in the opening with 1. ... c7-c6? Talk about clowning my friend. We as vets can argue about particular defenses but to say that ; in the context that black may or may not play ... c6-c5 (in the CK), is a potential waste of a tempo is totally misleading: In the Caro Kann Advance variation, true-we must disrupt the d4-e5 phalanx but it is not the philosophy of the defense itself. 1. ... c6 is no more a "time wasting" tempo than is 1. ... e6, locking in the LSB. Clear clowning. "Arbitrarily " NEEDING to play the ... c5 lever in most positions in the French sounds awfully like akin to saying, "play 1. ... e6 and screwing it and play ... c5 in one go" (paraphrasing obviously). Yeah, we can argue semantics and accurate definitions; combativeness and less combative, the "slowness" between the two; of which I totally disagree with your perspective & your perceived defensive philosphy~namely, these two defenses are reactionary in nature not provocative or "combative". Even then you cannot compare how one is more combative than the other because it's all about the variations white can play vs our defenses. All I know, and share with everyone is that imo the CK is the most solid against mostly every bombastic attempts by white. It's not wild & crazy, nor slow moving. It just affords more of an opportunity to equalize without the complications: be it dull, boring to just grind. Be it your defensive philosophy is to make concessions and force a melee or regroup behind a solid wall then fish for weaknesses...cool.