is the french practical? how can i play it without not much theory?

If you do not play the French against 1. e4, it is going to be a rather large amount of theory to cover 1. d4 players who follow with 2. e4 against 1...e6. That is, you would presumably have your main option against 1. e4, but someone can easily move order you into an inferior option (i.e. one that you do not know as well) by starting with 1. d4. If you want to switch to the French, Giri's course is likely the best place to start.

I think the winawer offers good chances for black

Rubinstein French 100%!!

This is like the majority of the French lol. If you don't like these variations then don't play the French. Winawer and Steinitz are the coolest French lines. I think Rubinstein French isn't offering black as much.

winawer french gives black equality if and only if white does not do the delayed exchange variation. but in the winawer black needs to know theory to not be stabbed to death by white

I dont like the french because

1)blocks up the bishop

2)can be blocked up by advance variation

The French defense seems to have got rather suspect in recent times. The value of a spatial advantage seems to be better understood. And if the LSB remains bad, this disadvantage persists (there are other lines where it gets exchanged, of course).

Trophies doesn’t play the French anyways

rubenstein doesn’t offer white too much either, and is easy to play on low theory. Trade pieces, play c5, trade some more, win in endgame =)

I could've worded it better. The point is Nc3 and Nd2 is the bulk of what the French is. It's like saying I don't like the Sicilian because of Nf3-d4 or I don't like e5 because of Nf3-Bb5.

Rubinstein kind of sounds like French Exchange 2 lol. It's a way of playing for black but Winawer seems to give black better chances of fighting for a win.

Yeah I know that’s why I don’t play French

Once Otb I was kinda forced to play French because of transpositions 1. d4 d5 2. nc3 nf6 3.bg5 e6 4. e4 I didn’t know what I was doing and lost badly

Makes a lot of sense.

Do you have a line you prefer against the Veresov now?

That was my point in my comment earlier. The French is not a "light-theory" transposition problem for someone who does not play the French. Especially when the whole purpose is to avoid the Bg5 lines (which are much less dangerous than going into the French lines without knowing what you are doing in the 1800-2000 USCF range (where the OP was last I checked).

Yep ofc

Agreed. Black gets equality at the absolute best but from what ive seen.. White gets fast development, good piece coordination, and a favorable opposite side castling. With all of those factors I ended up getting destroyed

c5 is the best for sure yeah

aint much other way to play it w/o theory though like op asked

Nimzowitsch played the French..

The French is not as popular at 2700+ anymore. It's status at the very top in that respect is somewhat similar to the KID, played only occasionally.

However, unless from within your preparation you reach positions you don't want to play, I'd suggest to give it a go.

Nimzowitsch played the French, Botvinnik, Petrosian played it too. Korchnoi and Morozevich, ex world number 2, used to play it as well.

Karpov didn't score great vs the French ( in one tournament he even asked for Korchnoi's help! ), Karpov also didn't score much vs Korchnoi's French. Fischer thought of the Winawer as anti-positional, yet didn't have a great record against the French.

So it's an opening that Karpov & Fischer couldn't consistently blow off the board and Botvinnik and Petrosian were happy to play. This is well above being "sound" levels, it's at the "very interesting" levels.

If you like the positions you see in your preparation, give it a go.