How to play against the French?

Everybody that plays White against the French is always avoiding the dreaded Winawer (1.e4 e6 2,d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4),  In my days as a professional gunslinger we knew it as the Win-A-War.  The delusional way around it is 3.Nd2, which is known as the Tarrasch.  But better known to gunslingers as the TRASH.

I believe the OP is avoiding the Win-A-War by playing 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5

IMO 3.Nc3 is the best test, but unfortunately also the most difficult.

The winawar in particular is a huge headache and a huge amount of theory too. Black can also choose 3...Nf6 which is its own big world of theory.

If you play 3.Nc3 and immediately go for sidelines, then sure,  you can avoid a lot, but I think it's very misleading to say you can just go with 3.Nc3, play natural moves and not worry about theory. It's not my opinion that 3.Nc3 has more theory attached to it than any other variation, it's a fact!

There are many sidelines for black too. My main complaint is on move 3 black already gets to choose his favorite way (Bb4 , Nf6, dxe) while white needs something for all of them.

When I played 3.Nc3 I avoided the main winawer stuff with 4.Ne2

As for the advance variation, after 5...Qb6 or 5...Bd7 white is the one who gets to choose his favorite way, and black needs to know something about each. Also the structure makes white's general play very clear: on the kingside.

GM Evgeny Sveshnikov, French Defense Advance Variation, Vol. 1 (c.2008):

I have been using the 3. e5 system against the French Defence for about thirty years (...Classically: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3)

...the following list of plans for each side is offered with the caveat that it should only be thought of as a rough guide. The list consists of plans which, in this or that game, might have played an overwhelming role whilst other ideas remained in the background. Furthermore, the plans for each side are directly linked with pawn structure and piece activity.
Plans for White :
1) Attack on the king making use of the space advantage on the kingside and a lead in development.
2) Use of the space advantage to cramp the opponent as much as possible and to force a transition to an advantageous endgame.

3) Release of the tension in the centre (dxc5, exf6) followed by a blockade on the squares d4 and e5.
4) Exchange of dark-squared bishops, followed by exploitation of the weakened dark squares.
5) Play on both wings.
6) If Black forms a locked pawn chain with c5-c4 then White prepares to undermine it with b3 and c4 (after bxc4) and (or) carries out a typical piece sacrifice on c4, d5, f5, e6, or g6.

Counterplay for Black :
1) Pressure on the d4 pawn.
2) Exchange of light-squared bishops by means of Nd7-b5 or b6 and Ba6.
3) The undermining of the e5 pawn by means of f7-f6.
4) Attack on the queenside by b5, a5, b4 plus counterplay along the c-file.
5) Counterplay on the kingside linked to g7-g5 and pressure on the f-file (a rare plan).

Sure I like 3.Nc3 and 4.ed anyway. But if you do play 3.Nc3 you can just play the pawn structures mostly.

If they play 3...de you're just playing a Caro-Kann structure so in the Karo-Kann you can just play 3.Nc3 too and it's the same thing and the big difference is how to play when black gets out the bishop with ...Bf5.

If they play 3...Bb4 4.Ne2 will get you Caro-Kann positons again.

And if 3...Nf6 then 4.Bg5 is easiest imo again with either a Caro_kann and you can try 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Bxf6 Bxf6 6.Nf3 when Black will either grab on e4 or go for an isolated pawn with ...c5. Either way it's a game and there isn't a ton of theory to know.

I agree with telestu. There's too many variables after 3.Nc3 and I don't feel like learning them or giving black plenty of choices. I despise the French, so I definitely don't want to spend time studying it. I've also heard numerous French players whine about how much they hate the "boring and drawish" exchange variation so my plan is simple. If you're gonna play the defense I despise, I'm gonna play the boring variation that you despise lol.

GM Evgeny Sveshnikov also considers 3 Nc3 more variable than 3 e5.  To extend the partial quote I listed in my last comment from his book on the French Def. Advance Var:

"I have been using the 3. e5 system against the French Defence for about thirty years. How did this weapon become part of my arsenal?...I understood that the move 3. e5 was not objectively the strongest, but I had no desire to compete with such experienced French specialists as, for instance, Vaganian , in the long and complex lines that arise after the main continuation 3. Nc3 . Thus I chose the 3. e5 system against the French (and similarly 2 . c3 against the Sicilian) for practical reasons..."

As Black, I am always glad to play against the Advance variation, the simple (and mostly played) line 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 - I always play 5. ... Qb6 here - White has chances for a draw - but that needs efforts of White to maintain more or less equilibrium. One of my friends told me about Eugeniy Sveshnikov's book about 3.e5, interesting and useful to read, not only for those who play the French defense as White. I have another book by Sveshnikov - about e7-e5 in the Sicilian defense - that is one of my favorite books about the chess openings

After 4.Bg5 black can choose to play the Mccutheon (4...Bb4), which is its own body of theory again

Andy Soltis's first chapter in Beating the French Defense with the Advance Variation (c.1993) explores 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6. Be2 (he also says 6. a3 is playable) where he like White's initiative.

Sveshnikov, in Vol.1 of French Defense Advance Variation recommends 6. a3!? (which Stockfish 8, 20 ply, says is virtually even +0.05 pawn equivalents for White) or 6. Be2 (Stockfish: 0.00).

Play 5.Ne2 bro and we're back to the usual. But yeah I suppose there's no way you can be ready for everything. i would suggest looking at games from old players like Lasker or Tartakower. In those days 3...Bb4 4.e5 wasn't thought to be so great and so they tried other stuff.

My lazy solution to the french is KIA and exchange variation, but before that, yeah, I was using lines I saw from old players.

The Tarrasch with 5.f4 is what I currently use with pretty good results. Quite a few French players just don't know how to gain counterplay against it. And it's quite a lot less theoretical than 3.Nc3, the regular Tarrasch or the Advance. For example:

I am not sure of what you mean by "20 ply". It would be advisable not to rely much upon numeric figures of (even strong) engines, especially in the opening stage of the game. If speaking about Stockfish 8 (I agree, it is very strong, Komodo 10 is very strong, too, I have both of them) - so when you look at your stated "+0.05 in White's favor", I can say that in order to be more or less sure of some approximate evaluation - when working on the openings (exploring the chess openings is just my hobby) - I always set up the time control 40 hours/40 moves, and it usually takes an engine from 50 minutes to 2.5-3 hours to make a move, AND THE NUMERIC EVALUATIONS which the engines show really do not mean that much. I set up the position in the Advanced variation after 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 - for the Stockfish 8 (4 CPUs 1950-2100 kN/s), with time control 40 hours/40 moves - just to see its opinion (I take those numeric evaluations just as reference, not more than that - the statistics of the played games in the Data Base is really of not less importance than "engine's opinion") - depth 28 (2 minutes 13 seconds "thinking time"): 6.a3 +0.03; and made the move at depth 44 (01 hour 26 minutes 33 seconds "thinking time") with evaluation 6.Na3 0.00.

The latest line on which I worked in the Advanced variation of the French defense is 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Na3 Bd7 7.Nc2 - and here both 7. ... Rc8 and 7. ... f6 are to my taste (it does not mean, though, that the other moves are bad). And when working on 7. ... f6, with the same Stockfish 8 with the time control 40 moves/40 hours - the Stockfish 8 upon 7. ... f6 played 8.Bd3 +0.31 in White's favor, expecting 8. ... fe (which is not bad at all), and just out of curiosity - upon 7. ... f6 8.Bd3 I tried 8. ... c4!? - I DO NOT CARE THAT THE ENGINE AFTER 2.5 MINUTES SHOWED 9.Be2 +0.41 (depth 30) in White's favor, because at the end, having finally made the same move 9.Be2 (depth 45; 01 hour 27 minutes 51 seconds "thinking time"), engine's evaluation was +0.00. When exploring chess openings in this way, I noticed many times that the engines' numeric evaluations sometimes even during the period of 50-70 minutes may vary significantly, sometimes from, for example, +0.2 to -1.5, or from -0.5 to +1.0. And there is not much reason to rely much on those numerics, really.

As for the key position from the Advanced variation which is being discussed (3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6) - my eternal question (saying again, the French defense was my main weapon as Black against 1.e4 for about 15 years) is - what does White have after 6.Be2 cd 7.cd Nge7 8.Nc3 (8.Na3!? Nf5 9.Nc2 Be7 (or 9. ... Bd7, or 9. ... Bb4+) 8. ... Nf5 9.Na4 Qa5+ and here 10.Nc3 Bb4; or 10.Kf1 - 10. ... b5, 10. ... h5 and 10. ... Bd7 are good here; or 10.Bd2 Bb4 (with appr. 11.Bc3 Bxc3 12.Nxc3 Qb6 13.Bb5 0-0 14.Bxc6 Qxb2 15.Na4 Qb4+ 16.Qd2 Qxd2+ 17.Kxd2 bc).

Or what does White have after 6.Bd3 cd 7.cd (7.0-0 Bd7 8.cd (there are also 8.Re1 Nge7 9.cd Nxd4 10.Nxd4 Qxd4; also 8.Kh1 and 8.Qe2, not much for White) 8. ... Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Qxd4 10.Nc3 a6 - although poisonous line, but in Black's favor) 7. ... Bd7 - and here White has least half a dozen of playable ways, 8.0-0 Nxd4; 8.Be2 Nge7 (it does not matter much how the black knight gets to f5 - via e7 or h6); 8.Bc2 Nb4; or 8.Nc3 Nxd4; or 8.Qe2 Nxd4; or 8.Nbd2 Nxd4; or 8.a3 Nxd4; or 8.Qb3 Nxd4 - I simply share what I faced as Black when practicing the French defense, of course not claiming that everything is quite ideal or tip-top in the analysis I shared, but just asking - where does White have advantage?

I agree, 6.a3 looks probably the most promising for White among all possible options (but, saying again, the Stockfish 8 after having "thought" for about 1 hour 27 minutes at depth 44 made the move 6.Na3).

As for Black, both 6.a3 f6!? and the usual 6.a3 c4 are good. If desired, we could discuss in detail (here in the forum or in private) about what White has and what Black has after both 6. ... c4 and 6. ... f6. At least, when playing as Black here, I did not complain.

A little P.S.: Komodo 10.2-64, (5.Nf3 Qb6) - 6.a3 +0.12 (depth 40; 01 hour 35 minutes 58 seconds, expecting 6. ... c4 and considering 7.Nbd2/7.g3/and 7.Be2)

As a French defence player, I am not keen on playing against the A-C attack and will normally play the McCutcheon instead. Most the current French defence also seem to prefer the McCutcheon. 

schachfan1:  Even though you write in your post, "(exploring the chess openings is just my hobby)", It is obvious to me that you are a young "professional  gunslinger".  Your analysis reminds me of mine a couple of decades ago.  I play correspondence chess now.

What intrigues me about all the comments on this topic so far is the failure to mention how pivotal 3.e5 is.  3.e5 changes the foundation (the pawn structure), the battlefield upon which the siege chess warfare will be fought.

First, the most profound principle in chess has been stated by famous chess players.  The principle is:  Winning chess is the strategically/tactically correct advance of the pawn mass.

Pawn moves are permanent because pawns cannot move backwards.  With 3.e5, White is voluntarily and most importantly permanently reducing his options of middlegame plans of attack.  This is so, because 3.e5 changes what the resultant pawn structure of the game will be.  With 3.e5 White chooses to trade very flexible and varied attacking plans for a rigid few plans of attack.  The plans of attack in the middlegame are dictated by the  possible pawn breaks that are dictated by the pawn structure. After 3.e5 the pawn break(s) for White are the pending f5, and the possible future b5 and b4.  Black's pawn breaks after 3.e5 are the pending c5, the possible future b4, and f6. ...f6 Is problematic and involves some tactical motifs. But, is sometimes necessary because of the blocked center and the White flank attack against Black's Kingside castled position.  The flank attack is much more successful when the center is blocked.  The defending side must unblock the center and counterattack in the center in order to thwart the flank attack.  

Because of this reduction in options that 3.e5 produces it can safely be classified as premature. 

Another reason for not playing 3.e5 is that White has been granted the central pawn duo.  To relinquish the power of this dynamic side by side pawn duo voluntarily and at a premature instance,  without adequate or insufficient compensation is not the strategically/tactically correct advance of the pawn mass.  

 Before 3.e5 White is not signaling to Black any of his  future plans.  And is holding the dynamic power of  his central pawn duo in reserve for the moment that Black chooses a move that will allow White to advance one of his central pawn duo pawns (d4, e4) with advantage.

To  the Op.  Your topic is titled, "How to play against the French?.  Not, "How to play against the French after 3.e5?

 Thank you for  the opportunity to post my opinion on a topic of great and enduring interest to me.

ps Schachfan1:  please post your analysis and opinion on any move other than 3.e5.  Thank you, and I look  forward with great interest to reading your post.

Thank you for your attention, @fieldsofforce. First of all thank you for enriching my vocabulary (my profession is foreign languages (German/English; and during my studies at the university, I studied independently Italian and Spanish, just for myself) teacher, although I have been working mainly as translator for the last 6 years (only from time to time having to do with private teaching), translating documents for several translation companies) - till today I have not known the word "gunslinger" 

When I was the 2nd year student, in 1995, I got interested in reading chess books, in learning chess more profoundly, although actually I began playing chess at the age of about 5 or 6. And namely as for the French defense, that was probably my first acquaintance with the chess theory - I had a kind of Play Station, and there was a chess program (of course much weaker than the modern monster engines) - but namely that rather weak chess program played rather often 1. ... e6 against me (1.e4 has always been my favorite) - and that chess program made me look for the ways at least not to lose as White against 1. ... e6. That was the first stimulation to get some opening theory knowledge  At first I practiced the Tarrasch 3.Nd2 (it's very pity that I cannot find one (somewhere in the copybooks) of my tournament OTB games - against the French defense, as White I played 3.Nd2 there, too, the tournament in the chess club in our town, 1 hour/game time control, I calculated for about 20-25 minutes the combination with sacrifice of two minor pieces, and at the end the opponent had to give up his queen, allowing me to win). Although I read much about 3.Nd2 in the books where GMs commented their games, it did not help much against that mentioned chess program  The same problems were with the other ways which I tried against 1. ... e6 ))))) And I decided to try 1. ... e6 myself as Black (reading commented French-defense games by Mikhail Botvinnik, Wolfgang Uhlmann, Tigran Petrosian helped me much to learn more about the French). Saying at once, for me as White - the Exchange variation has never been to my taste, and much the same the Advance variation. Now, when facing 1. ... e6 as White (I play 1.e4 only), I prefer 3.Nc3, and for a long time I practiced the main lines with Qg4 (I mean, in case of Winawer 3.Nc3 Bb4 - 4.e5 c5 5.a3 and eventually Qd1-g4). As Black, upon 3.Nc3 I am very fond of 3. ... Bb4, too, although I from time to time practice the classical 3. ... Nf6, too. And as for the Alekhine-Chatard attack, mentioned in this topic, - the line 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 (this is the matter of taste, I prefer Be7 to Bb4) 5.e5 Nfd7 6.h4 0-0!? is much to my taste, but I agree - Black has full rights to make White prove the correctness of the pawn sacrifice after 6.h4 Bxg5 7.hg Qxg5 (8.Nh3 Qh6 - even in this way, along with 8. ... Qe7). But saying again, 3.(Nc3) Bb4 is more to my taste.

Another line which I practiced from time to time as Black is 3.(Nc3/Nd2) Nf6 4.e5 Ne4!? (in blitz games this was really all right, in case you have worked a bit on this line ) - and these experiments with 4. ... Ne4!? eventually helped me to understand that after 4.e5 Ne4 5.Nxe4 de - not 6.Be3 but 6.Bc4! is just what I was looking for to play as White. As Black against the Tarrasch 3.Nd2 - my latest elaborations are connected with 3. ... Ne7!?, but I can say for sure - there are at least half a dozen of other ways, quite playable for Black (not only the most popular 3. ... Nf6 and 3. ... c5, but also O. Romanishin's 3. ... Be7, or 3. ... a6, or 3. ... Nc6, or even 3. ... h6, and of course A. Rubinstein's 3. ... de). As for the Rubinstein 3. ... de (I very rarely played it as Black), when facing it as White, along with the usual 4.Nxe4, just recently I've begun working on 4.f3!? (I mean 3.Nc3 de 4.f3).

As for 3.Nc3 Nf6 playing as White, I prefer 4.e5 (only from time to time practicing 4.Bg5, just for a change) - 4. ... Nfd7 (of course 4. ... Ne4 5.Nxe4 de the mentioned 6.Bc4) - and here, along with 5.f4 I also have been working and practice from time to time 5.Qg4!? - really poisonous for Black, not only in blitz games.

As for Exchange variation, thanks God it does not often happen in my games  (not because I always lose here), I like the Monte-Carlo variation to play as Black 3.ed ed 4.c4 Nf6 - with the main idea of Bf8-b4. But as for other lines, such as 4.Nf3 Bd6 or 4.Bd3 Nc6 - if I faced them more often I would have more profound elaborations . As for M. Chigorin's 2.Qe2 - one of the lines which I was elaborating is 2. ... Nc6 (3.Nf3 e5), and I also practiced the simple 2. ... e5, too (saying nothing bad about other ways, such as 2. ... c5, 2. ... Be7, 2. ... b6 or 2. ... Nf6). Another large topic is 2.d3 - many of good ways for Black, I like the straightforward 2. ... d5 (3.Nf3 Nf6).

Another interesting thing is 2.Nf3 (I myself am very fond of the Sicilian Wing Gambit 1.e4 c5 2.b4 as White) - and from time to time that transposition into the Sicilian Wing Gambit does occur after 2.Nf3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 (I also from time to time practice this way as White with 2.Nf3 to almost for sure get the Sicilian Wing Gambit), although 4.b4 is not obligatory, of course. As Black, I rather seldom faced 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 (or 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3), although this is a fresh and quite playable way for White - I like 3. ... d4!? 4.Ne2 and here both 4. ... Nc6 and 4. ... c5 are quite good.

As for 3.Nc3 Bb4 playing as Black - here is a heap of elaborations which would be too much, probably it would require a new topic for that, just to mention that in the main line 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ (for some period I practiced 5. ... Ba5, too) 6.bc Ne7 (the "poisoned pawns" variation with Qc7, Qg4xg7xh7 is also quite good and in no way incorrect) 7.Qg4 - the castling 7. ... 0-0 is interesting, and for some period I also worked on 7. ... Ng6!? (8.h4 cd). Another inetersting (although not so popular) line here is 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 Ne7 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bc b6 7.Qg4 (this looks the most challenging) 7. ... 0-0.

And to finish all this stuff which @fieldsofforce asked me to share - as for playing 3.Nc3 Bb4 as White, although I for a long time played the main 4.e5 (4. ... c5 5.a3 ... and Qd1-g4), just several months ago I began working seriously on 4.a3!? Bxc3+ 5.bc de 6.Qg4 - this is much to my taste. I am sorry for not using much of verbal explanations (such as "I am fond of the idea of Qd1-g4 to create pressure on g7"), I just wanted to share at least something what I have on the French defense, both as Black and as White, and even just giving the basic information about it has taken not so little space in this post. But saying again, I wanted to give just some of my ideas and opinion on the variations of the French.

Schachfan1:  Thank you very much for your follow up post. 

I am looking up my old notes  on everything after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4.  Yes, the Rubinstein.

I will post some analysis that I hope you will find at least interesting.

I read several times in wise chess books (to be more exact - in commented games) - if you want to play well against some opening or some specific variation - it might be very helpful if you play that variation both as Black and as White. The same was with me about the Rubinstein variation - although it is not quite to my taste to play it as Black, all the same I practice it as Black from time to time, beginning from 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gf!?, 4.Nxe4 Bd7-c6, and more common 4.Nxe4 Nd7, all the time wondering - why it is so difficult for White to get advantage against the Rubinstein, at the same time seeing (when playing it as Black) that Black does not have too much of winning chances either, but Black's position, although somewhat passive, is a kind of "fireproof".

A little P.S.: I cannot remember facing (3.Nc3 de 4.Nxe4) 4. ... Qd5!? when playing as White, but I applied it occasionally in blitz games as Black