French Defense 3 c4!?

I'm a fan of the French Defense when playing black and enjoy trying to transpose to the French if I can.  When I play against 1.d4 I find playing 1..e6 is fairly reliable at drawing out an 2.e4 so can I play 2...d5 and get to the French Defense.

So here is my question:  The main line of the French does not support 3c4 as a popular line.  I suspect white 1.d4 players play this because they are still thinking along queen pawn openings where after 1.d4 and 2...Nf6 or 2...d5 2.c4 is textbook.  But 3c4!? is not a strong line in  the French Defense, at least its not in the couple of books I have on the French nor does it come up a lot in the database I use.  Ergo, there must be an easy weakness white is exposing through 3c4!? which black can capitalize on.

So how does black best gain an advantage when white plays 3c4!? in the French Defense?

I think it just loses a pawn to dxe4, but white can get some compensation, perhaps if he plays nc3 and then f3 like in the blackmar diemer

I'm guessing ChessCamper means 1 e4 e6 2 c4.  Black easily achieves ...d5 and threatens the white e4 pawn.  The white c4 pawn is not useful.

Compare 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 exd5 4 c4 which is no good for white either.

I always play 3. ... c5 because it hits at d4 undermining Whites pawn structure.  I suppose 3. ... c4 is playable, just more passive, that's all.  But just to be clear, I'm no expert or theorist.   

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. c4 dxe4 and black is up a full pawn for nothing.

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. c4 dxe4 and black is up a full pawn for nothing.

That is not true. White has 4.Nc3 and 5.f3 transposing into a form
of the Blackmar Diemer Gambit 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3. Both gambits
are very dangerous for Black to defend against. White has a really
strong kingside attack.

Anyway the opening is called the Diemer Duhm Gambit and there is
a web page devoted to this opening. I have had many beautiful
blitz games with this opening. I even won a game with it at the Hawaii
International many years ago. My oponent thought for 45 minutes
when she saw the gambit. Anyway I used the extra time to think for
30 minutes on one move which was the critical move in the game.

The other opening 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 is called the
Orthoschnapp Gambit which was invented by International Master
Stefan Buecker. He wrote a short pamphlet on this opening.

Best Regards
DarthMusashi

Interesting gambit!

I will post 3 sample Orthoschnapp Gambit games 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5
exd5 4. Qb3.

Best Regards
DarthMusashi

Hmm. I tossed the starting position:

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. c4 dxe4 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. f3 c5

into my computer and ran a dozen games with stockfish 64-bit playing both sides.

Black won 6 with 4 draws and 2 lost games.

I'm not convinced.

whats the time set for both sides? I heard that BDG is unsound so that must be why Black won more.

2 minutes a side.

The time limit is too short!!! I think u should set the time to 40moves in 2 hours then an hour more to finish the game. U will get a slightly more accurate result. 

Hmm. I tossed the starting position:

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. c4 dxe4 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. f3 c5

into my computer and ran a dozen games with stockfish 64-bit playing both sides.

Black won 6 with 4 draws and 2 lost games.

I'm not convinced.

You should try the move 5...exf3 which is the accepted line. I usually
set my time control at game 5 min with 3 sec increments. Still chess
engines do not play gambit openings correctly because they have a
material bias. Also chess engines tend to trade Queens which loses if they
are still down in material. Anyway you should test it in blitz games at game 15 against human opponents. But even then you may not be able to play it correctly if your tactical ability is not up to par.

Best Regards
DarthMusashi

Why would 5. ... exf3 be the "correct"  line?

That appears to me (granted I'm a 1500 patzer) to be positionally weakening with no real compensation. Wouldn't white simply recapture Nxf3? At which point haven't I spent a tempo helping white develop while doing nothing of value for myself? To me the only moves that make any sense after 5. f3 are 5. ... c5, 5. ... Nc6 and 5. ... Bb4.

I'm not sure which is best, but they all have to be better than 5. ... exf in my mind at least. After all, aren't the opening principles: fight for initative, center control and development? 5. ... exf3 does exactly none of those!!

And, as an OTB player, why would I want an opening that's only good in blitz?

Why would 5. ... exf3 be the "correct" line?

That appears to me (granted I'm a 1500 patzer) to be positionally weakening with no real compensation. Wouldn't white simply recapture Nxf3? At which point haven't I spent a tempo helping white develop while doing nothing of value for myself? To me the only moves that make any sense after 5. f3 are 5. ... c5, 5. ... Nc6 and 5. ... Bb4.

I'm not sure which is best, but they all have to be better than 5. ... exf in my mind at least.

And, as an OTB player, why would I want an opening that's only good in blitz?

I have won with it in a tournament game at the Hawaii International
many years ago. My opponent was surprised by the opening and took
45 minutes to find a reply to my move. I used 30 minutes to find
the winning move at a critical point in the game.

And a lot of my opponents do play 5...exf3. This is the main accepted line. If you are going to bust a gambit you should be willing to take it straight on. I actually get better results if my opponent declines the gambit. Anyway it could be a good trainng tool to improve your tactics if you play the White side. In your practice games you should play to improve your game rather than make winning your priority. I had to learn this the hard way when I played Table Tennis a long time ago. I had been playIng an elder Vietnamese player and had beaten him all summer. But when tournament time came around he beat me and lots of strong attacking players. And he also played in the final of the State Senior Championship. He was a defensive player and had played his practice games to perfect his shots. I did not realize what had happened until the tournament. In Table Tennis you also have to experiment with new
shots and serves to improve your practice games. If you prefer to win instead then you may not improve your game because you will tend
to play what wins for you. The same applies to chess. Anyway I love
playing the Diemer Duhm Gambit because I get to attack Black's
kingside. Anyway it is a good training tool to improve your tactics
and your attacking ability. It will take you to the next level. Tactics
is the main difference between the rating classes. My highest rating
was 2205 and I had won the Hawaii State Championship in 1986 & 1987.
The Gibbins Weidenhagen Gambit 1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 and the Latvian
Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 took me to the State title. I am currently
a columnist at Chessville with my column called "The Search for
Dragons & Mythical Chess Openings". In that column I explore strange
new gambits and openings like the Hiva Gambits, Omega Gambits
and other new openings.

Long ago IM Marc Leski from France told me that players rated 2400 and up have their own openings which they create from standard openings which you will not find in the chess books available.

Best Regards
DarthMusashi

then you will only play the shots that win for you.