French defense - pros and cons

What do you think are the pros and cons of the French Defense, the advantages, and disadvantages?

I believe is less dangerous than other defenses and the ideas are simpler. Do you agree? I believe is easier to get a balanced position. As for disadvantages, I think it is sometimes difficult to play for a win and it is perhaps more drawish than other defenses.

The French is very sharp. Stategically is very difficult to play it for both colors although the most confortable side of the French is the white side. It is avery good defense to unbalance the game and play for a win. Korchnoi, Uhlmann and Short used it a sharp counter-attacking. The main drawback is that it is almost always going to be a tough fight, while with e5 equality is much easier to reach.

I used to play the french for years until I got fed up with the exchange variation...it leads to a very symmetrical and boring game to say the least.

I guess the exchange is the one downside. Also to play in the positions after 3.Nc3 Bb4 or 3...Nf6 you have to really tactically aware because you may have to sac material.

1) The French is fairly dangerous to play, unless white plays like a pansy (Yes, I'm looking at you Exchange wimps)

2) The ideas are fairly simple and straight-forward against MAYBE the Advance line, but black still has to work to achieve equality.  The French really isn't simple.  

3) Definitely not easier to get a balanced position, as long as white goes for advantage.  You lack space and will need to find a way to properly develop your LSB

4) The French really isn't drawish at all, unless you're playing an Exchange wimp (again).  Even so, the drawishness is more of an indictment of white's play, which you should be happy with as black.  

The French is solid but I've never liked it from either side.  I never play it as black.  Playing white, I typically answer it with the Monte Carlo Exchange.

It's more often unbalanced, usually a king side versus queenside struggle. NM @DavidFarsen mentions Wolfgang Ulhmann as one of its exponents, indeed his "Winning with the French" in the Batsford series is a great book. It may have dated since it was published some time ago, but the French isn't often used at top level any more (shame).

There are sharp lines, particularly the poisoned pawn variation in the Winawer, or the Alekhine-Chatard Attack in the Classical line, both amongst my favourites ;-)

Fischer apparently didn't like playing against it...

I like the French defense but it's not to everybody's taste. Except for maybe the winawer ..Bb4 it's really a defensive defense.

In all variations, white seems to get a lot of plusses where black gets equal deficiencies. White usually gets a nice expanded center, good mobility, relatively easy castling and king safety, and often an enduring initiative. Black usually is pretty solid and can get counter play opportunities often related to c file and/ or undermining the center. But it usually takes time where white can often get something going that's more critical. Holdable? Sure, but seems hard to get winning chances if White plays decently and doesn't over reach.

But the details are in the variation where in each the pro's and con's can vary enough to make a difference.

It's interesting that in just about every example, it's White who guides the play. In the lluptian ...Nh6, White's not obligated to take. Nor was he obligated to play b4.

It's mostly white who also decides on the Steinitz or MaCutcheon possibilities. White can even side step all this with the Tarrasch or even KIA. Not to mention the exchange, where he doesn't get much but the tempo and open lines still means black has to be careful.

I like the French but I would never go as far as over exaggerating its uncompromising attacking abilities.

Why do so many people complain about the "dull/drawish etc." Exchange variation? If a player WANTS to make a position sharp - he will do it, "even" in the "dull" French Exchange.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. I don't know what Black is doing if he doesn't sac a piece.

The pros are that you are winning:

French defence is boring... borderline torture for either side.

Marquis De Sade would have been proud.

Word is genius Deardrie, groan...

She is a hopeless case... 

Best ignore her.

Only problem idiot...

No such opening as Caro Kan?

Presume you mean Caro-Kann defence, hmm?

Nearly as boring as French exchange, not quite.

Deardrie like French because has snob value... lots of pompous names, variation. 

No player in top 20 play French defence regular. Kasparov, Fischer, not touch with a barge post. Enough said.

Lion has spoken. 

French is ok. I play it as white and black. As white I don't play exchange variation. Happy to see white play exchange against me. The most challenging is the Winawer variation. Again I play it both as white or black.

Bong enjoy then...

But Deardrie... she had high hopes

She had apple pie hopes

She had pie in the Sky hopes...

It may well be true that the top 10 players rarely use it in major tournaments today: but I am not in that league. Uhlmann's book "Winning with the French" is instructive. 

I’m looking into the French Incase d4 e6 wanting to play f5 and get a good Dutch position. But really why follow the pros anymore? They play the same drawish e4 e5 games ruy Lopez instead of playing for a win. Derek Kelley or Gotham chess on YouTube is much more insightful, not to mention other YouTubers creating similar content. 
I think Carlson is right saying less time and more games a day will show a more enjoyable chess tournament and less time to memorize 20-:30 move draws for one game a day. It’s a shame he doesn’t play different openings in tournaments as he does online such as the Dutch. Fischer brought change to chess in many ways including time increments and Fischer Random Chess. Carlson is has the ability and influence to change the game as did Fischer who played to win not draw. I will recall that Carlson did use the polish opening in a rapid tournament, didn’t win and still won the tournament. I think he is at the point of just having fun and doing what is more fun or enjoyable and still doing amazingly well.

I disagree with multiple points here. We’re actually seeing less Ruy Lopez and more Italian recently due to the dominance of the Berlin and Marshall Attack. Pros still play incredibly exciting and aggressive chess, and while there are incredibly drawish GMs and GM games, many are not and play for the win. Gotham is an absolutely HORRIFIC content creator in regards to opening theory, and he says as much. His target audience is the U1200 crowd, which makes up roughly 90% of chess.com players, but for players like you his recommendations would likely actively harm your chess. Blitz and rapid tournaments are certainly refreshing and interesting, but I only think this is the case as long as they exist alongside classical tournaments rather than replacing them entirely.