French Vs Sicilian

"Nimzowitsch's book My System is the greatest chess book ever written."

Not really. There are some valuable insights in there, to be sure, but there are lots of excellent chess books,

ohhhh

Woah

"Some valuable insights" means you're not taking the material in properly.  My System needs to be grasped in its totality to be utilized to its full effect.  The interplay between material, space, control of the center, tempo, and mobility, can't simply be taken piecemeal.

It took me a while to understand it, too.  When I first read My System, my playing strength improve immediately, but I must admit I didn't grasp the whole of it until I reviewed Petrosian's application of My System.  Nimzowitsch's games don't follow his own rules as rigorously, which in turn leaves room for doubting the whole of his work.  Petrosian dispels those doubts completely.

@Moonwarrior_1 - Woah is right!  In 8 games Team French has failed to win in the French Defense only three times, and two of those were easily winnable based on this simple tactic!  As good as 5 out of 8 with the black pieces sounds (and is), it really should be 7 out of 8.

Ugh makes me frustrated that I failed my Sicilian... that game was so bad... But I studied a ton lolw

""Some valuable insights" means you're not taking the material in properly.  My System needs to be grasped in its totality to be utilized to its full effect.  The interplay between material, space, control of the center, tempo, and mobility, can't simply be taken piecemeal."

Almost a textbook example of the making a holy fetish out of a mere book. I've never heard of Bobby Fischer, Mikhail Tal, Magnus Carlsen, Gary Kasparov, or Anatoly Karpov speaking of "My System" in such worshipful tones. It's a book! They read it, took what was useful from it, discarded the rest, and moved on. 

Petrosian and Botvinnik certainly spoke of it in such tones.  And Karpov discarded nothing from it.

If you're discarding anything from it, it means you don't understand it.  Nothing in the book is incorrect.  Not saying there aren't other useful chess books, but this one stands without rival.

@Batman2508 - I thought for certain I was going to be facing the French Advanced Variation.  The Rubinstein shouldn't come as a surprise, I hope.

@Dsmith42 

Nimzowitch himself preferred the Winawer variation heavily, and in fact, Uhlmann sometimes refers to it as the Nimzowitch Variation in his books. 

 "Nothing in the book is incorrect."

The Bible, the Koran, and . . ."My System?" These are the Holy books that are absolutely true in every detail, without a single error!

Nimzowitsch makes mistakes in his games, certainly, but all of those mistakes are easily identified by applying his own stated rules.  Tempo-losing exchanges, pawn captures away from the center, pawn thrusts not suitably prepared, failure to set up an adequate blockade, failure to fix a target in place before attacking it with numbers, and often enough simple failure to overprotect.  Petrosian's games don't feature these at all, and he can explain himself fully in the terms of Nimzowitsch, without borrowing any outside concepts.

Nimzowitsch doesn't pretend to know everything, and he does not even pretend to be the equal of the three giants of his time (Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine).  But he does teach everything he knows in the book, and everything he teaches in the book is fully correct, not merely conditionally so as Tarrasch's rules so often are.

Unlike scriptures, chess books are testable, and Petrosian proved out My System quite rigorously.  Petrosian had a level of discipline and precision that Nimzowitsch himself lacked.  That's the only difference.  Conceptually, there is none at all.

@Mr_Winawer - You are correct.  Nimzowitsch liked the Winawer with black, though he strongly promoted the Advance Variation with white as white's only real play for advantage in the French.  For him, the Winawer was the reason for this, but I'd argue that the Rubinstein makes a better case, as it counters both 3. Nc3 and 3. Nd2 equally well.

In my view, the Rubinstein is actually more in keeping with the principles of My System, specifically because black's development challenges are largely eliminated, and the advantages of the open d-file and the blockading square on d5 are obvious.  The d4 pawn on the open file can't be adequately protected without provoking further central and queenside weaknesses.  White, not black, is on a knife's edge in the Rubinstein.  Black is immediately not just equal, but better.

I never argue religion

@little_guinea_pig - 4. ..Nf6?! is wrong, you play 4. ..Nbd7! (yes, it's that good of a move) first.  Akiba Rubinstein himself played it that way, and it costs white tempo because the white knight can't remain on e4.

Any opening is bad if you don't know how to play it.  The position shown should never come up, even in a blitz game, if your opponent knows the Rubinstein.

@Laskersnephew - You shouldn't argue about chess books you haven't fully understood, either.

My System, like any really good chess book, takes some time and serious effort to fully absorb.  Yes, you can get a lot of useful things out of it with a quick read-through, but adapting one's own underlying tactical style to the positional structure that the book contains is no small task.

When I first read it, I instantly understood just how poor my positional play have been.  The error I made was in attempting to emulate Nimzowitsch's tactics even when in the back of my mind I thought he wasn't following his own principles.  Petrosian solved this riddle for me by confirming that suspicion - that the principles, and not the player, were what was right.

Superficial arguments always result from superficial understanding.  At the end of the day, it's just willful ignorance.

Mighta confused it with the move order in the Classical. At the very least if they aren't going to play Blackburne Defense, they need to recognise that h6 is required if they want to keep their misplaced Queen on f6.

Blackburne (Nbd7) is definitely the best here, though. Strongest response as determined by the engine.

This blind worship of what is, in the end, one of many good chess books, seems very peculiar. If a grandmaster was talking about "superficial understanding," I might be somewhat impressed. But coming from a player of limited ability, it's just kind of comical

Pure idiocy.  How can you confuse careful study for "blind worship"?

I know I'm not a great player - but I know what my weaknesses are.  I don't pretend to know everything, but I can tell the difference between what I know and what I do not know.  I understand My System, because I took the time to work out just how the different parts of it work together.

Let me put you on the spot - what, within My System did you yourself "discard" as unnecessary or unhelpful?  Give me a concrete example.  If what you're arguing is really true, you should have tons of them.

Why?