French Defense

.

I don’t think so. Also 5... Qb6 is Black’s best move in your diagram. 3. Nc3! is the best try for an edge.

def no

@Pepega

you don’t have the 4.e5 line right. White shouldn’t trade on b6 (I once misremembered theory and played it OTB against a much weaker player an needed quite a bit of luck to win).

Both Nb5 (leading to a one-sided endgame where White is slightly better) and Qd2 (a pawn sac leading to a more sharp position where White has the better chances) are far better than taking on b6. 

wdym I mean the ending  after Nb5 is unpleasant (not sure if Black holds) and the position after Qd2 gives White a dangerous initiative. 

Actually trading queens is just fine. Such an ending where Black has the constant problem of a potentially passive light-squared bishop is far from being recommended for Black, unless he is willing to defend for a long time.

Yeah I mean the Qxb6 line isn’t bad for White, it’s just that White has better imo.

Better or worse does not mean much here, its a matter of taste. I always find such endings a joy to play as white.

At the following one (different variation, same ending structure) Black was unable to save it, although it was played with engine aid for both sides. An engine won't tell you much of anything about the winning plan (which is rather obvious), but it is very useful for deciding the most efficient timing of the winning queenside break. And naturally, before operating on the queenside I did not mind at all blocking the whole kingside to avoid any hint of counterplay there.

Yeah I agree that these endings are pleasant for White. I just think that in the specific position shown Nb5 is the best route to an ending (if you don’t want a complex position with good chances with Qd2)

Of course, Black can completely avoid the whole issue by not playing 7...cxd4.  He has other options.

I personally play 7...a6 whenever I play this as Black (more frequently, I play 3...Bb4), and then there is the controversial 7...Qb6.

The French is played at the top Grandmaster Level!  There may only be a select few that play it today, but it has to do with what is trendy at that time.

Third Quarter of the 20th century, it was all about the French and Caro-Kann.  Botvinnik, Uhlmann, Petrosian, Korchnoi, etc, and it was still played on the 4th Quarter with Glek (French), Karpov (Caro), Short (French), etc.  It just was not as trendy as the third Quarter because it was not anyone that won the world championship.

Fourth Quarter of the twentieth century, all the rage was 2...d6 Sicilians.  Najdorf, Dragon, and Scheveningen, Kasparov playing the latter 2 and using a Najdorf move order to avoid the Keres Attack.

First Quarter of the twenty-first century is mostly a hybrid of 1...e5 and 1...c5 with the French and Caro taking a back seat not because GMs don't play it, but because the candidates that could legitimately win it all do not play it.  There are still plenty of 2500 and 2600 grandmasters that play these openings.  They are just not as well known as say, Caruana or Liren or Giri.

In many French lines, like the Winawer or McCutchen, Black has the better paen structure and is usually better in any endgame of equal material EXCEPT White Knight vs Black Light-Squared Bishop.

Obviously there are exceptions, but generally speaking, like most Rook endings with equal pawns are better for Black in lines where White's pawn structure is compromised early on.

@ThrillerFan - I think the problem most folks have with the French Defense is the immobility of the light square bishop.  There's nothing forcing white to exchange for it.  When I used to face the French Defense (I play the Reti now, but I used to be a 1. e4 player), I made a point of keeping that bad bishop entombed.  Against most amateurs, the advance variation of the French Defense plays like white is a piece up in the middlegame.  Avoiding that notorious white knight v. black light-squared bishop ending is easier said than done, especially if white is playing for it (which I was back then).

Granted, I wasn't playing any GMs, but the fundamental issue is that the French Defense requires both hypermodern theory and patience to play effectively, and very few players up to and including the Expert level have both of those.  People tend to shun hypermodernism today on the notion that none of the World Champions ever embraced the school's teachings (though Alekhine and Petrosian clearly did).

It's not until I read Nimzowitsch's explanation of how the French Defense is supposed to work that I understood its fundamental soundness.  But it's equally clear from that that black needs to spend a good 15-20 moves preparing a freeing action.  As Nimzowitsch demonstrated, the mere threat of a freeing action often enables black to forcibly exchange off the bad bishop, or else open the board where the bishop pair becomes very dangerous to white.  Most players (myself included) simply don't like being constricted for that long.

The French Defense is a great weapon in the right hands, but the depth and complexity of theory is greater than most defenses, which I think is why it is used less today than in ages past.  I agree with you that it's perfectly good, and that players should use and study it more.

I personally find playing against the Tarrasch variation really annoying, as I don't find as easy counterplay from blacks side compared to the Advance and Nc3 variations. Solid. And I always hate playing against the Exchange, as a close second; very hard to find an advantage there, unless white makes too many mistakes.