I honsetly don't care about the modern evaluation of the Tarrasch. That wasn't my point anyway. My only point was concerning Adams, and the strength of his opponents many of whom are experts in the french defense, like Korchnoi, Morozevich, Gurevich and so on. Sure, Michael is an extremly strong player, and Tarrasch obviously suits his style, but still his results are nonetheless very impressive. Then there are Tiviakov and Karpov who have also had great results playing the Tarrasch. Anyway, there is at least one thing we can agree on; Mickey surely was/is the beast.
For White, is the French Tarrasch a good way to avoid a lot of the theory of 3. Nc3?
Sort:
Alpha Zero has indicated the French Defense is not so good in the main line with 3, Nc3 so I would play 3. Nc3! myself.
I would be worried playing the French--if I were playing either Michael Adams or Alpha Zero. But I can handle my fellow patzers pretty well!
Nc3 is the best move but also requires the most opening preparation, especially against the winawer. You can avoid the mainline with the Alekhine's gambit.
Oct 28, 2022
0
#26
Which variant do most French players hate most to play against? the Tarrasch? the Advance? the KIA? the 3.Nc3? or something else white can come up with? What is most difficult to understand to most average club players? (I think I am going to play the French as black myself, so I am not going to waste much time by studying something challenging.)
Oct 28, 2022
0
#27
I meant, I don't fear studying something challenging, since I have to learn it anyway.
Yes, the French Tarrasch is a good way.
It is what Nepomniachtchi preferred against Ding in their World Championship Match:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2479640
That doesn't contradict anything I said.
Well it kinda does. I was reffering to your claim that his opponents were not as strong as Michael was, when in fact if you take a look at chessgames.com, the vast majority of his opponents are actually world class players.
It's not a question of the quality of the opening. Mickey was top ten in the world, even top five, and while many of his opponents are recognizable names to us, when you're that strong, you're primarily playing weaker players (and the few players who were stronger than him didn't play the French too often, either).
The opening fit his style well, he came up with some original ideas, and he showed it can be very successful. But I would never jump to any conclusions about the modern evaluation of an opening just because of one individual's statistical results, even by a player of that strength. The conclusion I draw is that Mickey was a beast.