Do you know a strategical line against CaroKann?

I've consistently been between 2050 and 2150 for the last couple of years, nowhere near GM.  Not even flat out master.  Not once have I had an issue facing the exchange.

I would never advocate this line to anybody as a draw for Black is a moral victory.  Only time this should maybe be used is if you are facing someone 300 points higher, it's the final round, and a draw is sufficient.

I would recommend the Panov, Fantasy, or 4.Nc3 line of the Advance Variation to a tactician, and 3.Nc3 or Advance with 4.Nf3 to a positional player.  If you play 3.Nc3 and Black plays 4...Nd7, if you do choose to do the quiet line, 5.Nf3, then after 5...Ngf6, play 6.Ng3.  6.Nxf6+ is a joke and again, an EASY draw for Black!

You should also NEVER use rating as a basis for the rightness of an opening.  1500 players (over the board that is) are a joke.  You could play 1.h4 against a 1500 player.  However, why learn garbage when you are going to have to start all over again when you start facing 2000 players, or masters?  There are 5 legimate lines against the Caro-Kann (actually, there's 6, even 2.d3, leading to King's Indian Attack lines, are better than the Exchange Variation), some positional, some tactical (see above).  Might as well learn one of them now rather than having to start all over again once you gain a couple of hundred points.

If the Caro-Kann exchange leads to a draw for black why did Bobby Fischer decide to use it against Tigran Petrosian in an important tournament, and why then did Petrosian lose instead of getting this assured draw?

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044326

This is an opening white can play for a win with. There's not much theory to "learn" either, that's the point. If I decide to switch to something else it doesn't matter because it only takes a few days to learn the exchange variation anyway. Meanwhile I can be studying tactics and positional ideas and not get bogged down in theory against an opening I'm only seeing once in every 25 games or so.

I think your problem is that your bias against the exchange French is now carrying over into the exchange Caro-Kann. Just because they both have "exchange" in the title doesn't mean they're the same. And anyway, the exchange French isn't so bad either, that's another good way of avoiding theory. The Caro-Kann and French players don't want you to play the exchange variations, they want you to use the main line variations they've been studying for years so they can smash you off the board with their theoretical knowledge. Sorry, that's not what I'm going to do, and you can try to disparage the exchange variations all you want I'm not going to play right into their hands just because those openings are more "pro" or whatever.

Also the Caro-Kann exchange is helping me learn strategy and middlegame play. I enjoy having a game where each side has clear plans, and an opening that's based more on ideas rather than theory.

I refuse to accept any argument based on:

A) A single game

B) Any game before the computer era

Your argument is just as bad as those that claim the King's Gambit is sound.  The pre-computer era, theory was not as well known.  Many busts to lines that were once thought sound have been found.  Many forced draws have been found.

Below are just a few of many openings whose assessment has changed when the computer era began (i.e. early days of Kasparov onward):

King's Gambit - Sound before the computer era, unsound since

Exchange Caro-Kann - Typical slight edge for White before the computer era, dead equal since.

Sicilian Dragon - Dynamic and tactical line with a slight edge for White, though chances for both side before the computer era, a flat out theoretical draw since the computer era.

Marshall Gambit (Ruy Lopez) - Suffered basically the same problem as the Dragon

Also, your garbage about my bias against openings that have the word "Exchange" in it is horsesh*t.  There are openings that I personally don't play due to "fear" of the exchange variation.

Also, the Panov is a subset of the Exchange.  That's why I said 3.exd5 and 4.Bd3 is garbage.  Not 3.exd5 in and of itself.  4.c4, while still not any good against the French, is a potent weapon against the Caro-Kann.  Another opening where the Exchange Variation is to be feared is the Grunfeld.

So instead of putting words in my mouth, try asking for reasoning instead.

Also, you said, and I quote:

"The Caro-Kann and French players don't want you to play the exchange variations, they want you to use the main line variations they've been studying for years so they can smash you off the board with their theoretical knowledge."

Well now that's funny.  I quit playing the French as Black because of many new ideas that favor White in the Advance that came out in the mid-2000s along with 3.Nc3.  The Advance is still a lot less theoretical than 3.Nc3.  So nowhere have I ever said you have to play the most theoretical line.  I play the Advance myself, though I occasionally also play 3.Nc3 against the French.  The Tarrasch and Exchange are both dead equal with correct play.  Zippo advantage for White.  As for the Caro-Kann, one of the least theoretical lines is personally my hardest one to face.  The Fantasy Variation!  Again, never said you have to play the "most theoretical" line to get a legitimate advantage.  However, against anybody that knows what they are doing, the exchange with 4.Bd3 (4.Nf3 is even worse, and I've seen that as well) will get you nowhere!  If you are going to trade on move 3, you need to act fast, and the way to do that is 4.c4!

Don't you think the Caro-Kann exchange variation is useful for teaching the elements of strategy and middle-game plans? I certainly think it's helping me in those areas.

I enjoy the opening so I'm going to keep playing it. I enjoy not having to learn much theory and just going by ideas, and spending this freed up time I would be studying theory studying tactics instead.

Whatever opening there is there's always going to be someone who bashes it. For me at least, and for many people in my same situation, the Caro-Kann exchange makes perfect sense. I've had success with it so far and I expect to win many more games using it.

Or perhaps I may even switch to the London System as white and not give them a chance to play the Caro-Kann in the first place. How do you like them apples?

By the way ThrillerFan, you say that 1500 players are a joke, but I notice it's only in "online chess" that you have a 2071 rating. In blitz, you're 1677, and  if you look at my first post I show two games were I beat people around your same rating with the exchange variation this past week alone.

 GM Davies and GM Perelshteyn say that the Caro-Kann exchange variation is good for white. I think they know more about it than you do. You'd do well to watch their DVDs and start playing it yourself, then you may experience the joys of the Caro-Kann exchange from the white perspective.

I'm sure you must have seen my posts before about the London System and how it's the most utter cr*p in all of chess.  I respect the Trompowsky, Torre, Veresov, even the Colle, but not the London.

As for your argument of learning strategy, no, I don't think the exchange caro-kann is a good example.  If one is looking for a simple system against the Caro-Kann that teaches the basics of strategy without reams of lines to remember, I'd advocate 3.Nc3, and after 3...dxe4 4.Nxe4, the following is what I'd recommend:

Against 4...Bf5 - The Main Line - White's ideas are extremely simple

Against 4...Nf6 - Take it!  You can learn a lot about the ins and outs of doubled pawns.  Black gets doubled pawns, but also gets a semi-open file (either e- or g-).  Especially if he plays gxf6, it teaches the idea about who should be looking to trade.  White has a better structure.  Black has counter-play.  Who wants to retain pieces?  Who wants an endgame?  (Hint - Exchange Ruy has the same effect).

Against 4...Nd7 - While 5.Ng5 is all the theoretical rage, 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Ng3! is an excellent line to use to learn the basics.  Here, unlike the 4...Nf6 lines, White wants to retain pieces.  He has a space advantage rather than an advantage in pawn structure.  With the extra space, and all other factors equal, you want to keep pieces on the board.  If Black has less room to manouver, he would love to get a few pieces off the board so that the others have room to breathe.

The problem that I have seen many times with amateurs playing the exchange Caro-Kann is two-fold:

1) You don't learn the true dynamics of the game, like space, structure, etc that you learn with 3.Nc3

2) Too many amateurs in these lines are too honed in on maintaining a pretty pawn structure that they completely ignore all the other dynamics of the game.  If you force yourself into lines that involve one side having doubled pawns, isolated pawns, etc, you actually learn that they are not automatic death.  Too many players get these structures, and then just assume they are lost, and start playing wreckless, looking to pull off a trap, when instead, the position was dynamically equal or even slightly better for them, but they don't understand it because all they've done is specifically avoid such situations at all cost - so even from a tactics and positional play standpoint, I don't advocate the Exchange with 4.Bd3.

3) Too many amateurs assume that a reverse opening is as advantage due to the extra tempo.  Not true at all.  Many times, that extra move just forces you to commit to something when you really want to wait and find out what the opponent does.  For example, after 1.d4, e4 is weakened, so 1...f5 latches on to the e4 square.  This does not make 1.f4 10 times stronger because Black hasn't committed to ...d5.  He could play ...d6 at some point, and play for ...e5.  The thing to realize as Black is that the minority attack, typical idea for White in the exchange QGD, is not priority one because he is down a tempo, which changes the game completely.  If you don't understand this, and simply play the Caro-Kann because it looks just like a Slav or White Queen's Gambit Exchange, you are fooling yourself!

If you really want to learn tactics and positional play, I find the following the best ideas:

Pawn Structure - Queen's Gambit Orthodox (Breaks, releasing d5 by taking on c4 at times when trying to hold d5 is too much - identifying these is part of understanding it), Slav Defense, etc, just to name a couple

Executing a Space Advantage - Playing the opposite side of any hypermodern opening - i.e. Black side of the Reti, White side of the KID, White side of the Alekhine, etc.

Isolated Queen's Pawn (IQP) - Panov, QGA, Catalan, Tarrasch Defense, French Tarrasch with 3...c5 4.exd5 exd5, etc.

Doubled Pawns - Nimzo-Indian, French Winawer, Sicilian Lines with a frequent gxf6 (Najdorf, Sveshnikov)

Pawn Chains - French, King's Indian Defense

Tactics - Almost any 1.e4 e5 opening outside of the Closed Ruy, which is more positional in nature.

Strategy - Queen's Gambit, Closed Sicilian, Closed Ruy Lopez

Now, am I saying study the theory of all of these openings?  Absolutely NOT!  But if you look up a couple of the lines of say the Najdorf or Sveshnikov with a frequent gxf6, or certain lines of the Nimzo-Indian or French Winawer, plug them into Rybka, and search the position for games in the database, don't bother with the theory, but look at these games, and see how both players handle the doubled pawns (the owner of them, and the one attacking them).

Under no circumstances should you restrict your studying to you own repertoire.  When studying middlegame and endings, specifically make sure that the openings of the games you study are diverse.  For example, if you are a French player, and you are studying a book with 100 of Botvinnik's games, and 13 of them are the French Defense, don't just study those 13.  Study all 100!

I'm sorry for bringing up your blitz rating ThrillerFan, I have no doubt that you're a much better player than I am, and anyway your blitz rating is still very good.

Thanks for your comments as well. I have learned from your comments, though I still disagree with you about the Caro-Kann exchange. Perhaps it's something to do with my style but I really like this opening. Maybe in the future after I've gotten good at the middlegame and endgame I'll try some of those other variations out against the Caro-Kann.

Saying that my Blitz Rating is good is a joke and a half, but blitz ratings on chess.com (or ICC, or FICS, or any other) don't mean jack.

Server connections, 5-minute games, cheaters for some opponents, experimentation of openings before playing them in a real legitimate game, etc.

Blitz ratings are erratic.  They go up based on trickery, better server connections, etc.  I know other 2200 players that have much lower internet blitz ratings and 1700 players that have an internet blitz rating of over 2400.

Correspondence also can't be trusted because of cheaters, whether it be the 2400 correspondence player that has an over the board rating of 1200, or the 2000 correspondence player with an over the board rating of 2100 or 2200 that faces these 2400 cheaters!

So one's strength should be judged by their FIDE, BCF, USCF, CCF, or some other over the board, slow time control rating system.

Well I still think your blitz rating is quite good, considering it's harder to get a high rating the quicker the time control here, and your average opponent rating is higher than yours too. I think overall you're one of the best players we have here at chess.com that consistently posts in the forums.

You do seem to be the exception Firebrand in that you have a higher blitz rating than you do live standard. I got a low blitz rating here when I tried it, and this is why I closed out my old account (AdorableMogwai). But I was playing very fast blitz games at 3 minutes per side, also I didn't have pre-move enabled and was using an old gummed-up laser mouse with no mouse-pad, but still it seemed like the blitz pool was stronger and there was a little more rating deflation there.