French Players: Learn to embrace the Exchange Variation!

Then why do we discuss anything, lol.

Why white would go about voluntarily playing the exchange and solving blacks 'problem bishop' is probably the same reason I played it when starting out - I was told to play it by my coach because it's less theroy intensive than the main lines. Just play natural developing moves and play an equal position out. When you start to get a bit more along the way, the strategy of using the 'problem bishop' to white's advantage can be better understood and thoughts of the exchange variation fall to the way-side.

Wow, that escalated quickly :D So, @threatstarter (or anyone other French player) can you share some of your insights as to what you learned and which systems and general strategic plans you play as black?

I have some sympathy with the Tmkrolls pointof view. The chances are that stats that favour black slightly indicate that the black player is higher rated. It could also be, but unprovable that the position does represent "zugzwang lite" viz that black's information lead and ability to react is marginally more significant than white birthright of the first move in this particular position.

Way preferrable to lack of both.

Most of these opening threads end up that way... There's usually a lot of trivial discussion on the first few moves followed by how those few moves somehow decide the entire game. Very rarely is there any discussion on the middlegame positions that actually do help to evaluate the chances of both sides. 

The only exceptions tend to be trappy openings like the Latvian or Budapest where people have simply memorised theory and traps up to the middlegame. 

At any rate that does seem to make a case for club players of the White pieces since players tend to memorise "formulas" for these types of openings and don't pay too much attention to the middlegames. But that's just my opinion. 

Sorry sir, but you really cannot play 3.c4 on your fourth move. Can you?

4.c4 dxc4 transposes to well known QGA line, considered equal, but here Black has the luxury of avoiding swapping the pawns on c4 until white has moved the f1 bishop (4...Nf6 etc).

Oh...nevermind. I already mentioned that your logic is somewhat lacking.

"is painfully simple and irrefutable."

But it is pretty refutable. There is in fact a big difference between the position after move 3 of the exchange variation compared to, for instance, the position after 1 e4 e5. They are the same in that the position is symmetrical... and different in many important respects. Such respects have already been pointed out here rather thoroughly. Just one snippet of that would be how much of the potential in the center is lost after the pawn exchange (this is perhaps also true of pushing a pawn to e5, but at least then white gets something in return, a space advantage).

I'm not sure black has some clear route to equality in many french lines, and I say this as an exclusive french player. In most mainstream openings there are probably some lines where white keeps a small advantage but black has a really playable position. In fact I view equality as more of a bonus -- as black, getting a position just a tiny bit worse and knowing what you are doing in it is not bad at all. It may be that a fair amount of openings lead to a (slight) white advantage. It's hard to say because one person can find some equalizing line for black, but then someone else will come along and say no, white can play some different move somewhere else and now black can't equalize, and so on.

In the exchange french, while people may still try to prove some advantage for white, the course of the game seems much more predictable. There are not any fundamental problems in black's position in the exchange, which is pretty good because in many openings black is not able to say that. Based on this, I will indeed infer that black will have few problems equalizing. Of course, there are other reasons to play the exchange french -- stylistic reasons, psychological reasons, etc.

"3 c4 is known to be a reasonable move."

Sure, it's reasonable. There's nothing really special about it though. Admittedly an early c4 is about as structurally imbalanced as the exchange french will get.

Here is an open and symmetrical position. Whoever is to move surely must have a huge advantage:

On a side note, I have played 3.c4? against the French for some time. (I switched to the trusty 3.Nc3 once I discovered the Winawer-craziness-killer 3...Bb4 4.Bd2.) The best I can say is that it is less worse that it seems...

pfren points out something very important: Usually opening advantages are nice, but often they are spoiled a lot at every level below GMs. 

Chess is a good game because it's mostly skill...so it doesn't matter what kind of opening you play, if youre better than your opponent, most of the time youre gonna win.

Opening choices do not matter if you drop pieces and make mistakes in the middlegame, as EVERY chess player does, and has done since the beginning of time.

I've never seen a symmetrical opening that lead to such a disadvantageous position for black.

Honestly, I feel like I would rather play a position I am comfortable with and one I am experienced in, rather than one that theory says is advantageous for me. Of course, I'd like both if possible, , but usually if its between a slight edge in position and slight edge comfort and experience....I'll choose the latter every time.

No one is saying White is in Zugzwang. Zugzwang is when it's a disadvantage to have the move.

You might think that but actually moving first doesn't guarantee an advantage as a few of us have tried to explain to you here. It depends on the position. There is such a thing as an even position. Simply saying "White has the advantage because White has the move" in a position every general opening manual or book on the French I have says is equal is not convincing. I won't take your claim on faith. You do actually need to back it up with analysis. 

Yes, disregarding zugzwang, one would prefer being able to move over, well, not moving. But in the case of the exchange french it will hardly amount to anything. It can't hurt of course -- if I could have $0.01 without having to do anything, sure, why not. It is almost certain that it won't make any difference in my life, but I suppose it can't be worse than nothing.

Anyway, kind of sad that you have to troll, since you seem like a pretty strong player. Yeah, you're that confident an IM is wrong, so much so that you could bet your life on it. With your chess ability you are able to make much better contributions than this.

Actually what we've been saying over and over is that not all semetrical positions can be evaluated by such simple logic. In some of them having the move does give an advantage. In some of them having the move gives a disadvantage. In some of them having the move does not matter. You'll grant that in a drawn position having the move does not matter, right? Will you grant that in very closed positions having the move does not matter? Will you grant that in certain structures which are not zugzwant it's even a good idea to, as some very strong players have done, make a "waiting move" and let the opponent change the structure before taking advantage of the change. You seem to have it in your head that there are only two kinds of symetrical positions, zugzwang, and ones where having the move gives an advantage. The position we're talking about is not a forced draw, but it is a position that not only every theory book I have regards as equal (and I'm sure the authors do understand general principals, know that's it's White to move gets to move, and did take that into consideration before evaluating the position as equal) but strong engine analysis spits back "=", statistics actually tend to slightly favor Black, and following general prinicpals when you actually look at the pawn structure and the prospects of each side appears to most people to be equal. Is it painful for you to admit that such a position could be equality?

1-how do you know it is not zugzwang? It could well be that the forcing line is twenty moves deep.

2-there is no advantage for either side. This is a draw. I challenge anyone to come up with a way to make that position interesting; the only squares to cover are e2/e7 against a rook penetration, and that's easy enough since a rook trade on the d file would move the king to a control square. Of course, opposite-colored bishop do not help.

Oh, sorry. I assumed you meant that whoever is to move has a nonnegative advantage, but if you consider dead drawn position to be "zero-advantageous" for whoever is to play, I guess you are technically right.

Whose move is it???

Fiveofswords wrote:

MISTERGQ wrote:

I'd say white has less of an advantage after the french exchange simply because pawn structure had been defined without any problems being posed and an equal hard point has been established in the center by both sides. White has less of a first move advantage than if he had done nothing at all.

this is a very confusing statement. I wonder how you would evaluate this position:

+1

And due to general relativity, if you place your clock so that your opponent's end is higher you effectively have more time, and therefore an advantage.

Pointless to mince words.  Your rating (if it's not cheating) means you're knowledgeable enough to use the word "advantage" as chess players use it and not in a colloquial sense.  No pass for you.