19678 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Hey, learning the french. Can someone please tell my why white wouldn't want to play 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.xd5 ?
To me it seems that white will have a comfortable game and not really have to worry about closed positions.
White does have a comfortable game after 3.exd5. The problem is that Black is even more comfortable! The position is already just about equal objectively. And usually, when Black achieves equality that early, Black can expect to outplay his opponent.
Strong players sometimes do play the French Exchange as white, but they don't play it to be comfortable, they strive to create sharp positions. The problem is that 3.exd5 exd5 doesn't lend itself to sharpness. As long as Black is vigilant, he can usually draw, and often wins.
One really famous game was Mikhail-Gurevich vs Nigel Short. Gurevich as white only needed a draw to advance to the next stage of the World championship. Short needed to win. Gurevich played the Exchange variation, reached a drawn position, but couldn't finish it.
Here's that game.
I believe Kasparov won a few games vs GMs using the FD Exchange Variation, so if you're as good as he was it's probably a wise choice. Otherwise it just immediately gives up White's advantage of moving first, although I suppose you could rationalize doing that in what Nimzovitch referred to as a form of "odds giving" (ie playing an inferior opening vs a weaker opponent).
If you're just going for a draw as White I guess it's OK but IMHO it's still giving Black too many chances not just to equalize but to actually gain the initiative if you're not careful.
If you want a draw you still need to play for a win imo, not giving away adavantages.
It might just be a way to study less theory though.
I use it [4.c4] along with the Panov-Botvinnik to avoid theory and get an isolated pawn.
^ and what do you play as 3. ?
1.e4 e6, 2.d4 d5, 3. ???
ah ok lol.
but it's different from the Panov because black has a pawn on c instead of on e. I don't play those positions but I reckon it would be slightly better for black to be able to contest the e file and having no problem with this lsB ?
If you understand the resulting positions and plans very well, it makes perfect sense to play it. You'll simply be trying to win based on your better understanding of the middlegame or endgame while starting off on equal terms.
The more serious White tries for advantage all result in quite different positions - if you don't understand those nearly as well as the Exchange, why play into them? Ideally, of course, you should strive to play the best possible moves and press your advantage; but you can't prepare for everything at once right away.
Yeah although I think a trade of rooks usually helps White because it pulls one of Black's pieces out of position.
Ok, well basically I'm trying to beat a stronger oponnent (He has great attack and tactics, but doesn't understand the strategical reasoning behind the moves that well) so I am trying to play closed positions. What are your opinions?
Play Scandinavian Defense: Blackburne-Kloosterboer gambit.
...That's the not a closed position at all. In fact, I feel like it is too open for it to be of my liking.
Well there is no way to prevent the exchange variation and opening the game unfortunately. The cost for White is that Black should get an equal game but at class level that's pretty irrelevant and White gets an easy to play weapon. On the other hand Black gets an easy to play defence.
Personally I use it to avoid closed setups. I feel that the positional skill required to play them is more than is necessary to win at my level. Why should I worry about c-file pressure and stuff when I can just throw my pieces at my opponent with a minimal requirement of opening theory and advanced techniques? Most of my games are lost because someone missed something and not because someone increased the positional pressure to the point that the other player had to concede something. That's master chess.
I don't really enjoy playing the exchange as Black but I can see why someone would settle for the simple exchange.
I don't understand the thinking. White, by virtue of the first move, has a chance to try for a real opening advantage. All of the brilliant White wins against the French over the last 100 years have been in the classical lines or Winawer or Tarrasch. Yet players give up any serious attempt at opening advantage with the Exchange and think they are accomplishing something?
I played the French for 19 years in all sorts of competition, including against three players who played in a US Closed Championship. French players were sort of a sect, we would share ideas with each other sometimes. I never met a French player who worried about the Exchange variation at all.
It is only new French players who worry about it. Experience teaches that if White wants to play an inferior line, don't complain.
Maybe now, but already at 1700 - 1800 you surely won't expect to win a game because your opponent missed something.
Unless you're happy of never improving much, sooner or later you'll have to tackle the more complicated positions.
@Estragon You're right! I played French defence against my friend (who is much better than me, and I've never won against him in standard games) and he did the exchange variation. I was winning in position and material throughout the game, it only ended in a draw because of a blunder.
Hmm, yes. I think that French is highly strategical, and players that play tactical will not want to play it. I really enjoy playing tactical, but I feel that I need to understand the game more before sacking a rook for better position, so I choose to play strategical.
plutonia - almost 100% of decisive games between players around 17-1800 are decided because someone missed some kind of tactical idea from what I can tell. That's also true of decisive games at 2000+ level, although you might occasionally actually see a game where one player wins because another player creates a positional defect that decides the game. This is still 'missing something' though.
Unpopularity in America
by Lasker1900 a few minutes ago
The Sicilian Dragon
by Wezzyfish a few minutes ago
Help - Oxidation/White Residue Problems on Bud Rosewood Chess Pieces
by richiwalt 3 minutes ago
Feedback on Improvement to Tactic's Trainer Analysis feature
by DM_CaptainObvious 11 minutes ago
Will computers ever solve chess?
by s23bog 17 minutes ago
5/24/2016 - V. Korchnoi-V.Chekhover, USSR Ch semi-final 1951
by uglyork 17 minutes ago
Question about QGD
by ChessOath 20 minutes ago
Need help seeing hwere I went wrong
by achja 23 minutes ago
Significantly Weaker Computer-3 HARD Engine?
by JSLigon 30 minutes ago
Quality Chess Book
by fightingbob 43 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!