French defence winawer, french MacCutcheon variation is the best protection? Your opinion...

i need help . 

Do you need help from the  White side or the Black side?

Both are good.

To win with Black in the French Defense best is Winawer (WIN-A WAR).  To draw with Black best is Rubenstein Fort Knox variation.  1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 or Nc2 dxe4 4.Nxe4.  Now

black has a 2 vs. 1 pawn majority in the center. Very  similar to 2 vs. 1 pawn majority in the Sicilian.

To win with White you have to  go for  the  Advanced variation.  1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5

Terrible advice.

                                                             ___________________________

Terrible advice.

If you could elaborate.  Give us some detail for your conclusion.

The statement is a set of vastly oversimplified generalizations. And it isn't supported by the win/loss/draw ratios of databases.

Could you at least post the win/loss/draw ratios of  databases.  thx

Vastly oversimplified generalizations.  could you be a little  more specific.  which generalization is oversimplified and why.  Please some detail  or variations to anchor your written post: Vastly oversimplified generalizations

Fieldofforce: DrSpudnik is correct.  You don't have to play the advance to play for a win.  In fact, the advance is more often played by beginners.  Top players prefer 3. Nd2, with a slow game that keeps the center intact without overextending.  I would also disagree that the Winawer is best when playing for a win, although it is very theoretical and complicated.  I play the MacCutcheon for a win and do just fine.

To answer OP's question, the Winawer is very complicated and theoretical and in some lines black must sac material, which is why I stick to the Maccutcheon, which is a bit less complicated although some lines require memorization

fieldsofforce wrote:

black has a 2 vs. 1 pawn majority in the center. Very  similar to 2 vs. 1 pawn majority in the Sicilian.

The above is not correct.  I was looking at another position in another topic and confused in my mind. 

The correct perspective is 3.Nc3 or 3.Nc2 allows Black to transpose into the Rubenstein Fort Knox variation.   Very difficult for White to play for a win against Black's super solid position without at great risk overplaying his position.

                                                              _________________________

knighttour2 wrote:

To answer OP's question, the Winawer is very complicated and theoretical and in some lines black must sac material, which is why I stick to the Maccutcheon, which is a bit less complicated although some lines require memorization

                                                             _____________________________

You are correct from Black's perspective.

Neil McDonald wrote: "Never trust a man who calls it (the advance variation) advanced variation.  I agree.

thanks all

                                                                         _________________

When I was a Professional Gunslinger in the chess circuit, my repertoire included the French Defense Rubenstein Fort Knox as an alternate drawing weapon.   My repertoire did not include the French Defense as a regular opening.  If White wants to avoid the Rubenstein Fort Knox in the normal move order of  the French  Defense after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3  or  3.Nc2 I am  going to play 3...dxe4 (Rubenstein).  The only way to prevent 3...dxe4 is  to play 3.e5.  Now  I have played  players that would try different move orders in order to transpose into the Winawer or the Macutcheon, a delayed  e5 Advance variation or a Tarrasch.  I am  not going to get into those nested complications.  Suffice it to say I would find a way to  transpose into the Caro-Kann or some other  opening where I  knew the variation favored Black.  In other words, my opponents or the opponents of anyone using the Rubenstein Fort Knox will find it necessary to play  1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 in order to avoid the Rubenstein.

I so often find those who live by the wisdom of a database, usually die (across the board) by it as well.

Chessbases's own on-line database suggests that 3.Be3 (%53.2) or 3.Bd3 (%51.3) have a higher win ratio than 3.e4 (%49.4)...so to blindly quote statistical patterns without perspective, who is using sweeping generalizations now?

Golly!....Apparently 3.e5 in the French is more often played by beginners. Well there you go then, you learn something every day.

Wasn't it the God father of the Hyper mordern movement Nimzowitch who said it was the best try against the French?...Don't beginners like Shirov, Kupreichik & Sveshnikov use it regularly? I guess Sveshnikov has too because of his use of 1.e4 c5 2.c3.

And finally to say that Winawer is very complicated and that one uses the MacCutcheon is a contradiction in terms, they are both as complicated as each other (which is largely supported by Wendall Lutes book on the MacCutcheon which offers 474 lines of play)

As to the OP questions. I have 4 systems against the French. (1) Kupreichik variation in 3.e5 (2) Alekhine's Gambit in the Winawar (3) Wolf's Sytem against the MacCutcheon and (4) on special occasions, the Muller -Zhuravlev Gambit against in the Winawer

Each system is largely uncomplicated and more importantly the ideas behind them are easy to understand

- Statistics without a large sample size can be very misleading, especially when many low quality games are included.

- Masters tend to prefer 3.Nc3 and 3.Nd2 as the most reliable choices.

- The exchange and advance variations are probably most popular at the lower levels, but they're also played by GMs.

- When it comes to a selection from several main line systems, it mostly comes down to personal preference. Just play something and form your opinion. You could ask a coach for advice or play through several master games to get a feel for what suits you best. How would anyone in a forum know?

Maybe if an actual master added some input, it might help dispel some of the advice above.

Personally, I play 3.Nc3 against the French and am OK with seeing the Winawer. I also play the French as black and go for the Classical (3...Nf6) when possible.

*GASP* You can' say that!! You can't tell a player to have a personal preference based on expereince based opinion?..No no no...this will not do! He must plug all moves into a chess engine, cross reference them against a database, say three hail marys and then go out and lose with grace...

Oh....

I am taking the piddle.....if you hadn't of guessed

Candidate master working on NM at the moment (if this aimed at me)...  FWIW a friend close to 2400 USCF thinks I have a strong opening and the opening hasn't been an issue in my recent games with masters. (In my last tournament, I screwed up two =/+ positions as Black against masters - in one game, an FM offered me a draw at move 21 and I played on. I won my game as White against an FM with a +/= position in the opening, but admittedly it was a messy game fraught with errors. Inspires confidence, huh? :P)

I have a student who plays the Classical lines with Black in 4.Bg5 Be7 and I have a friend at chess club who really likes the MacCutcheon. I think they're both good. It comes down to preference, experience, and how hard you're willing to work. The MacCutcheon player is an older Class A player who likes to read opening manuals and study sharp theory, while the Classical player is a rising Class C junior who is trying to get solid opening positions with similar French middlegames. Both choices make sense to me according to tastes and ambitions of the individual.