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

Sort:
Ethan_Brollier
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
Ethan_Brollier wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:

its perfectly possible to gain winning chances in the rubenstein in a practical game.

It is possible yes, but afaik in this line Bb5+ c6 Bd3/Bc4 is better than Bd3, and then White is much better early on. As I said, with inaccuracies from White it's possible, but by that token the Damiano has winning chances for Black (I've been checkmated after winning the rook in the Damiano) but we all know that with proper play the Damiano loses and with proper play the Rubinstein loses or draws. Winning chances come after a blunder or multiple inaccuracies.
edit: checked and White scores 75 points after Bb5+ c6 instead of Bd3 immediately in the line shown. SEVENTY FIVE!!! Stockfish 15+ NNUE says the position is +1.4 at depth 30. Again, many inaccuracies or a blunder and you can get winning chances, but the Rubinstein is dubious at the very best.

Not really. White is in a much better position but it's far from won. Think about how you can't say the Fried Liver is won with proper play because it's a draw with even better play, and Damiano is left in a far more playable situation than the Fried Liver for black.

It's like the Bongcloud - if you play the Bongcloud suddenly white is far worse off. But you can't say he loses with proper play. Chess is a draw from move 1, I am pretty sure after 2 or 3 more moves that don't lose material it is still almost always a draw no matter how bad the moves are. It's incredibly hard to claim any position near the opening is a forced win with proper play.

No... the Damiano actually loses. With best play (Nxe5 Qe7 Nf3 d5 d3 dxe4 dxe4 Qxe4+ Be2 Nc6 0-0 Bd7 Nc3) Black loses the e-pawn for free and White develops much faster. If not best play, Black loses a rook with no compensation. Either way, that's enough of an advantage to win by force. The Bongcloud, on the other hand, merely loses castling rights, center control and two tempi. That is enough of an advantage to most likely win by force, but not definitely win by force (unless you're an engine).
Here's a study of all the best moves in the Bongcloud, and note the evaluation dropping constantly (forgot I wasn't signed in when I originally did the analysis, but I went down to depth 30 for each move): https://lichess.org/study/vM7jXi7G

Cobra2721
IronSteam1 wrote:
cogadhtintreach wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
cogadhtintreach wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
cogadhtintreach wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
Kowarenai wrote:
LordVandheer wrote:

Who said French is garbage?

"its a S*** opening but i have done so much work to make it kind of basically correct"

I'd say the French is almost certainly a draw with best play. But black needs to know what he's doing (which is kind of a pointless statement, as this is true with all defenses).

Also, the first time I beat an International Master, I used the French Defense - so I'll always have a fondness for it, even if it's no longer part of my repertoire.

The Rubinstein is relatively easy, if you want something simple and clean that'll just suck the wind right out of white's sails. Learn the basic ideas of it. Then just use your tactical/positional skills to outplay your opponent from an even position (the Carlsen approach!).

Here's one example line:

A6 is theory? Seems like a waste of a tempo given that white doesnt want anything on B5, and B5 is very weakening for black if they play it

Theory there is an immediate ...c5

But ...a6 is playable, since it's a quiet position. Anand played ...a6 against Ivanchuk, via transposition. This was their game:

After many more moves, they went on to draw.

Why did Vishy play A6?

It's a threat of gaining tempo on white's Bc4, with a ...b5 followup (which would then allow black to play ...Bb7, either before or after ...c7-c5).

It's a common idea in several QGD/QGA lines, and also in some lines of the Najdorf ...

Well A6 IS the Najdorf

Yes ... I'm aware of that.

What I mean is, the a6+b5+bb7 idea is seen in some Najdorf lines, but not all.

It's somewhat common in ...e6 Najdorfs (Najdorf with a Scheveningen structure, as Kasparov liked to play it). But not something you usually see in ...e5 Najdorfs.

(If Pfren were still around, he might argue with me that Kasparov played the Scheveningen with an early ...a6, and not the Najdorf ... but I digress ...)

Pfren would start a argument with a lampost

ssctk
IronSteam1 wrote:
cogadhtintreach wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
cogadhtintreach wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
cogadhtintreach wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
Kowarenai wrote:
LordVandheer wrote:

Who said French is garbage?

"its a S*** opening but i have done so much work to make it kind of basically correct"

I'd say the French is almost certainly a draw with best play. But black needs to know what he's doing (which is kind of a pointless statement, as this is true with all defenses).

Also, the first time I beat an International Master, I used the French Defense - so I'll always have a fondness for it, even if it's no longer part of my repertoire.

The Rubinstein is relatively easy, if you want something simple and clean that'll just suck the wind right out of white's sails. Learn the basic ideas of it. Then just use your tactical/positional skills to outplay your opponent from an even position (the Carlsen approach!).

Here's one example line:

A6 is theory? Seems like a waste of a tempo given that white doesnt want anything on B5, and B5 is very weakening for black if they play it

Theory there is an immediate ...c5

But ...a6 is playable, since it's a quiet position. Anand played ...a6 against Ivanchuk, via transposition. This was their game:

After many more moves, they went on to draw.

Why did Vishy play A6?

It's a threat of gaining tempo on white's Bc4, with a ...b5 followup (which would then allow black to play ...Bb7, either before or after ...c7-c5).

It's a common idea in several QGD/QGA lines, and also in some lines of the Najdorf ...

Well A6 IS the Najdorf

Yes ... I'm aware of that.

What I mean is, the a6+b5+bb7 idea is seen in some Najdorf lines, but not all.

It's somewhat common in ...e6 Najdorfs (Najdorf with a Scheveningen structure, as Kasparov liked to play it). But not something you usually see in ...e5 Najdorfs.

(If Pfren were still around, he might argue with me that Kasparov played the Scheveningen with an early ...a6, and not the Najdorf ... but I digress ...)

It looks like pfren has closed, it's a shame, I learned a lot from his posts, he really is an expert on a range of topics.

ThrillerFan
cogadhtintreach wrote:

Nimzo considered the French almost refuted

Just because a person said something a hundred years ago does not make it gospel.

John Watson in Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy basically ripped My System to shreds. Oh, and who wrote My System?

ThrillerFan
Ultimate-trashtalker wrote:

Sometimes when i get bored playing the caro i play the French.Its a tough nut to crack.But the most annoying thing is the exchange french

The Exchange is the easiest of all variations! You just gave me half a point, and I'll beat you in the minor piece endgame for the other half of the point.

Ethan_Brollier
ThrillerFan wrote:
cogadhtintreach wrote:

Nimzo considered the French almost refuted

Just because a person said something a hundred years ago does not make it gospel.

John Watson in Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy basically ripped My System to shreds. Oh, and who wrote My System?

And even if the French is 'almost refuted' ehhh who cares. It's too much fun to not keep playing honestly.

Ethan_Brollier
ThrillerFan wrote:
Ultimate-trashtalker wrote:

Sometimes when i get bored playing the caro i play the French.Its a tough nut to crack.But the most annoying thing is the exchange french

The Exchange is the easiest of all variations! You just gave me half a point, and I'll beat you in the minor piece endgame for the other half of the point.

What are your thoughts on the Monte Carlo Exchange?

darkunorthodox88

the French is a defense with something for everyone. You like dynamics? play winawer, you like complex strategic struggles play nf6 lines. you like really closed stuff? play early nc6. You like endgames and being very solid, play the rubinstein or even the ft. knox.

unless you want crazy open games for black, you cant go wrong with French.

Chess_Player_lol

French works pretty good for me, the exchange variation is a tad annoying, but i think if white is playing 2.e4 knowing it transposes to a french then they probably won't be playing the exchange variation.

gik-tally

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

A: very badly

gambit coward frenchies drive me crazy though. come out and fight ya coward... always hiding under your bed y'all ran from my monte carlos, but it's all good. i'm 58:35 in 26 alapin gambits (1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Be3)

mpaetz
PawnTsunami wrote:
ssctk wrote:

Fischer thought of the Winawer as anti-positional, yet didn't have a great record against the French.

Didn't have a great record? +42=17-21 is a pretty solid score (especially when you consider 17 of those losses were in the early 1960s, when he was in his late teens and early 20s).

Fischer's overall record as white was +439 =173 -108. It does seem that Bobby had more trouble vs the French than he did in most other openings.

PawnTsunami
mpaetz wrote:

Fischer's overall record as white was +439 =173 -108. It does seem that Bobby had more trouble vs the French than he did in most other openings.

If you "struggle" against an opening with a 2:1 advantage, you are doing pretty damn well.

EKAFC

I used to find the Exchange quite annoying but the higher up I go, the more I enjoy it because it allows me to equalize immediately and play for the advantage. I like to imbalance the position with …Bd6, …Nc6, Nge7, and …Qd7 and keep my options open for which side to castle on. What I like about this system is that I can play …Bf4 and force a trade of light-squared bishops which really annoys them or pin the knight on f3 while at the same time, preventing White from doing so to you. On top of that, it’s very easy to learn and doesn’t consists of a lot of tricky sidelines

mpaetz
PawnTsunami wrote:
mpaetz wrote:

Fischer's overall record as white was +439 =173 -108. It does seem that Bobby had more trouble vs the French than he did in most other openings.

If you "struggle" against an opening with a 2:1 advantage, you are doing pretty damn well.

He had measurably poorer results vs the French (struggled more) than he did as white in other 1.e4 games.

PawnTsunami
mpaetz wrote:

He had measurably poorer results vs the French (struggled more) than he did as white in other 1.e4 games.

That is to say, he didn't struggle at all.

mpaetz
PawnTsunami wrote:
mpaetz wrote:

He had measurably poorer results vs the French (struggled more) than he did as white in other 1.e4 games.

That is to say, he didn't struggle at all.

So you think he never struggled at all in any games? How do you explain his losses? It is plain that he had a tougher time beating the French than he did vs other defenses.

PawnTsunami
mpaetz wrote:

So you think he never struggled at all in any games? How do you explain his losses? It is plain that he had a tougher time beating the French than he did vs other defenses.

You are trying to play with semantics and moving the goalposts.

I never said he never struggled with any openings. That is a strawman. He has a massive plus score against the French, including only a handful of losses after 1965 (i.e. in 7 years, he lost 4 games from the White side of the French). You are asserting that his overall score with white being close to 4:1 means he "struggled" against the French. If that were actually the case, more people would have tried playing it against him. Suffice it to say, "struggle" is misused in this context.

PawnTsunami
Ultimate-trashtalker wrote:

Who cares? Fischer is an old man who had a 2700+ strength at that point

He stopped aging in 2008.

The original point was that even the likes of Fischer and Karpov had trouble against the French Defense. In reality, neither did. That does not mean the French is a bad choice for a club player, but rather that trying to assert world champions had trouble against it as justification for picking it is asinine.

Yogi18102004

I don't think so

ssctk

There was a French today in the WCC match

https://www.chess.com/news/view/fide-world-chess-championship-2023-game-7

Nepo made an interesting comment on the French during the interview after the 7th WCC game today. He said the French is good but it runs the risk that an opponent may prepare a computer line for it.

Still he played the Tarrasch, aiming for a tiny but stable advantage, not a computer line.

Also, it's not clear why the issue of a prepared computer line is more apparent in the French than other openings which are played at the top.

Years ago Peter Svidler attributed the lack of French games at the top due to the French being too comital, this too doesn't fully make sense to me, not all openings played at the top retain fluid pawn structures.

In today's game Black lost but not because of the opening, also it was a very complicated game, the sort of game that a Black player would want to throw to White to increase winning chances at the expense of drawing chances