How do I counter 1.e4 e6

The problem is that black can gift back the pawn in a way which is winning for black. @pfren posted it on another forum but I don't remember it

How many times do I have to say this… of course there are problems with the opening. Of course there are ways for black to get an advantage. I am not denying any of this. I’m talking about playing the odds. It’s not like playing the Stafford where by now everyone knows the refutation. It’s a rare line. If for some reason it becomes popular and a ton of French players know how to handle it, then it becomes a different story.

Even you, just now, said "there's a refutation, but I don't remember it."

I imagine it might gain popularity, I'm surprised it hasn't become extremely popular like the Stafford did. Though if I were to have my opponent play the Orthoschnapp now, I would probably do my best to retain the pawn. 

Maybe. The Stafford is easy to get to because e4 followed by Nf3 is probably the most commom first move pair in chess (played 18.4M times in that other web site's database). To date, 4. Qb3 has been played a grand total of 41.5K times whereas the mainline e4 e6, d4 d5 has been played 9.3M times, so less than one half of one percent. As of now, you're going to see it once every couple of hundred games.

I've seen it maybe once. That would make sense, based on those numbers.

 

You are comparing apples to oranges.

The thread is about 1.e4 e6.  How many times 1.e4 and 2.Nf3 occur is irrelevant unless you ONLY count those where 1...e6 is played.

 

After 1.e4 e5, 2.Nf3 is the most played move

After 1.e4 c5, 2.Nf3 is the most played move

After 1.e4 e6, I promise you that 2.Nf3 is not the most played move unless the database you are using is capped to only games played by players under 2000.  Anything normal like Megabase or 365chess.com or any other, I promise you 1.e4 e6 2.d4 is played light years more often than 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3.  The latter is only played by those who play:

A) The wing Gambit

B) The two Knights variation, though 2.Nc3 first is more common here

C) Sub-1800 players that do not understand the French at all that wind up falling into the Exchange Variation with fewer options due to having committed to Nf3 (in essence the exchange with 4.Nf3.)

@thrillerfan - I really don’t understand what you are getting at.

We were comparing the Stafford gambit’s popularity and I said it was easy to get to. I assumed that everyone knew that the Stafford arose from 1. e4 E5. The point was that you’re rarely going to see the Orthoschnapp and that people are less likely to prep it than the Stafford. People can almost run the Stafford as their main response as black whereas the Orthoschnapp requires a specific set of circumstances to be relevant.

Also, the database is by no means capped at 2000. It has steps of 1600, 1800, 2000, 2200, and 2500.

By the way, in 2500 games, the 4.Qb3 (the Orthoschnapp) wins 55% of the time and loses 39%, with the rest draws. Shockingly, this is a better white win% than at 2200, 2000, or 1800. Even people who “understand” French theory don’t seem to do well against it.

I would provide visual evidence, but I’m on my iPad. Just ask and I’ll post screen shots.

 

I have no idea what the Stafford Gambit is, and look at the title of the thread.  Nobody gives two hoots about 1.e4 e5 here.  Take it to another thread.  This is specifically 1.e4 e6, and so any reference to 2.Nf3, given the title, assumes 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3.

 

Stay on topic, fool!  This is why the argument that 2.d4 is far more common than 2.Nf3.  Anything on this thread assumes 1.e4 e6.

And no wonder I have no idea what the Stafford Gambit is.  I do not study garbage.  When I played the Petroff, 3...d6 is the only move I'd consider, and as White, I play 3.d4.

 

But alas, enough of this 1...e5 garbage.  GET BACK ON TOPIC! (See title!)

Good Lord @thrillerfan, what on earth are you on about? Nobody was talking about the Stafford gambit in any meaningful way. It was simply used as a point of reference. I said the Orthoschnapp was rare, with known refutations, but that the refutations weren’t widely known, unlike with the Stafford, for example. The response was that the Orthoschnapp would likely become more common, just like the Stafford.

We were not talking about Stafford lines or how to refute it, but its usage as a possible analog. Jeez, would you please stop insulting me? I’ve been nothing but polite and reasonable. I have based my arguments on statistical breakdowns (which I can manage capably), not French theory (which I cannot). I have said nothing that is incorrect and I haven’t tried to pretend that I am something that I am not. I would appreciate an apology.

I was referring to the Orthoschnapp in my post.

     Many French players "automatically" respond 2.....d5 to most any 2nd move from white, but with 1.e4 e6  2.c4 c5 black has nearly equalized already and put white into the type of game they were hoping to avoid.

@mpaetz - but you’re basically transposing into a Sicilian after white plays 3. Nf3, right? How many French players are comfortable with a Sicilian structure playing black? I should think white is more likely to feel at home, but it’s just a guess. I honestly don’t know and am just thinking out loud.

That just transposes into a Sicilian Kramnik variation. 

     Yes, it's now a Sicilian. It's a Sicilian variation that is (relatively) rare as white gets nothing and black has a better winning % than white. I did say that many French players will go for 2....d5, but French players who have seen the Steiner attack would probably prefer a more solid system.

Yeah, it gives up control over the d4 square, which leaves black better. 

I was just looking at variations of the Kramnik and white is never worse. The main problem I see is that white's light square bishop doesn't have a lot of scope. White can definitely play d4 if desired because the queen and knight on f3 are aiming at it.

But Thrillerfan is going to get mad at us for talking about the Sicilian, so I'll shut up now.

Yeah

e4 e6 c4 d5 d4 - French Defence : Diemer-Duhm Gambit