French defence

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.

Any help?

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.

^ 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.

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.

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.