winawer and classical, to me at least, are both great openings and are deep deep goldmines for you to get stuck into. I think the move by move books on both are excellent. I would learn and enjoy and play both.
French defence: classical vs winawer variation
Sort:
Aug 2, 2015
0
#3
It's a very general question but black is more solid after Nf6, and doesn't get weak black squares. After Bg5 either black can choose not to exchange his black square bishop at all, or it gets exchanged for Bg5. For example 4Bg5 pxp 5Nxp a form of rubinstein, then after nd7 bishop not exchanged. 4....Be7 5e5 etc both bishops are exchanged. There is also the more complicated 4...Bb4. In some lines similar to Winawer, but others very blocked positions or more minor peices exchanged.
What are the pros and cons of french defence classical variation in comparison to winawer variation?
In the winawer variation, black lost his dark square bishop but managed to destroy white's kingside pawn structure.
In the classical variation i.e. after Nc3 Nf6, black loses dark square bishop after Bg5. What are the pros and cons of this position? Winawer seems better as atleast white's pawn structure is kind of broken.
You can transpose from some lines in the Caro-Kan to the Classical French, the only way I allow that. Don't like the Winawer for either side, so I play the Exchange variation for White, and the Rubinstein for Black, which is what the supercomputers do, likely to simplify and get to a quick middlegame.
"which is what supercomputers do"
.... Super computers do that because its the best move for a super computer not for a human.