Is there any reason to open with 1.d4?

How many rating points higher than yours must one be for you to accept a draw offer after the speculative, and doubtful, 1.e4 is matched by the deadly French, Ziryab?

There have been a lot of VERY silly statements in this thread, but I think this one actually takes the cake. So you think you've increased your playing strength by 3-400 rating points in 3 months, without playing in any tournaments, because your coach says so?!

How exactly has your coach reached this conclusion? Is your coach psychic? Have you played dozens of long time control games in this time period against actual class A-C players to know how well you play against them?

You may have greatly improved your ability at certain areas of the game that you've been working on recently, but that doesn't automatically translate to results on the board. Playing strength is made up of a lot more factors than just tactics skills, endgame skills, opening knowledge, knowledge of positional play, or whatever else you're studying with your coach. Thought process, judgment, and decision making during games can't be judged that way in coaching sessions. That's why you have to actually play to improve, and to see how good you really are. And when we're talking USCF ratings, that means playing slow, real time games, not correspondence ("turn based" here on chess.com) or blitz here or anywhere else.

Take it from someone who really is a "strong class B player" (USCF rating will be around 1770 once a tournament that ended last weekend gets rated), your first post that started this thread proves that you don't have the chess understanding of most class B players.

Your assumption that 1. e4 is more likely to lead to tactical positions that low rated players can learn from is actually pretty good. But by "low rated", insert "under 1600". Class B players don't make the type of game-determining tactical blunders you're talking about nearly as often as you think they do. And when they do, it's frequently because positional factors have put them in such a bad position that they can't really defend against, no matter what they do. Class B is right around the level where tactical blunders become infrequent enough that positional play starts to really matter, as opposed to lower levels where tactics almost always trump position.

Don't get me wrong - I wish you well and hope you really do improve to class B and higher soon. But right now, you clearly lack the experience to understand the real differences between class A and B players vs class C and D players, so don't pretend to speak as a "strong class B player". I keep saying that as a 1700 player, I play guys in the 1900's enough to understand what makes them better than me and know what I need to focus on to reach their level. You may have the experience to have that level of understanding about the difference between your current 1400 and a 1600 rating, but until you reach that level, you aren't really a class B player, and you don't have the experience to understand what makes an 1800 better than a 1600.

--Fromper

'almost all modern players play the french'...oh come on, how many times did kasparov or karpov play the french?? or kramnik or anand for that matter, or in fact any of the last world champs since the 60s? and as these days the vast majority of strong players are opening with 1.d4 you never get to see the french. and for what its worth i have a very good understanding of the french, which is why i know the typical middle games that arise out of it etc. in fact if you would like to see a demonstartion of how to play against the french i suggest you go to iccf and look at the WS/O/316 tourney. you will find a game with the 7.Qg4 line (which is my game) against a +2000 player, clearly showing the limitations of the french, with almost every black piece misplaced and completely inactive. but im really interested to know which of these modern GMs you are talking about who play the french, as far as im aware the last world class strength GM to play the french was korchnoi.

I would say, play 1. d4 if you think that you have the skills to create and exploit subtle positional advantages. Don't play it if you can do no better than produce a drawish position and hope that maybe your opponent blunders a pawn out of boredom.

Bareev, who was in the top 5 not long ago, is a specialist in the French.  I think Kamsky, Anand, and Nakamura also play it.  

But none of that really matters.  Plenty of regular GMs (2500-2700) and IMs play it, even if it is less popular among the super GMs (ie 2700+).  It is a solid, flexible, dynamic opening.  It also doesn't hurt that a lot of e4 players scorn this opening and don't bother to study it.  And then you see stuff like this:

in that case look at shirov vs bareev wijk aan zee 2003 for a demonstation of bareev losing in the french.

Please go back and read my post again. I did not say that almost all modern players play the French. I said that almost all modern players agree that it's extremely dynamic. It may have limitations at the 2700 level, but that someone like you thinks they can effectively show up those limitations is simply laughable.  

Oh, you mean Bareev lost a game in the French?  Then it must be a horrible opening!  

but the point was made that all modern players now use the french, which is simply not true. 1. korchnoi is hardly a modern player 2. bareev is nothing to shout about and 3.uhlmann is mostly respected in the states, outside the states he is hardly regarded as a serious threat. so i am still to see a list of these top modern players who all play the french. in fact show me one player inside the world top 10 who regularly plays the french?? i cant think of any myself. maybe im wrong but i just dont see the french being as common at GM level as is being made out.

San Luis 2005: Topalov wins FIDE world championship in double round robin against world's best players. The only missing player was the true world champion, Vladimir Kramnik.

Two questions:

1) How often was 1.d4 the opening move?

2) How many games began 1.e4 e6?

Even so, it is true that the French is less popular at the very highest levels than other responses to 1.e4.

and nuclearturkey i did read over yr posts, especially the one that stated i have no understanding or knowledge of the french. thats some assumption! as i have already made mention of this on another thread and listed an iccf tourney for you to look over (WS/O/316) you will clearly see that i do understand the french in great detail. and you ask why it is important what openings the top players are playing, well just a hunch but my feeling is that these guys know a thing or two about chess and we can learn a great deal from them, and if they are rejecting the french en mass i say there is something to be learned from that. of course you are welcome to take your lead from bareev, uhlmann and many other 2nd rate players. each to their own n'all.

On chess.com I have scored 85.5% with 1 e4  and  75.1% with 1 d4 so....

1. e4     IS best by test in my experience here.  Oddly enough though, I score better with 1 d4 in otb chess..... go figure

I score better with 1.e4, but that's because I use it against weaker competition.

and sorry Mr turkey, what is 'someone like me' meant to mean?? oh i see, we are to take our education from someone like you i guess?? just exactly what is it you think you know about me? well my friend, when you have represented your country at chess i will listen to your views, until then dont pretend to know the first thing about me or my standard of play (which im guessing is far higher than yours). as for firing names like bareev and uhlmann at me to support your views, well, i only have kasparov, karpov, carlsen and countless others who totaly disagree with you to go by. so before you start calling 'people like me' maybe you should research who ppl like me might be and what their playing strength is...k.

and if you care to look at the shredder opening database you will see that the french is only 3rd after 1.c5 and 1.e5 in terms of success - at an average elo of 2505 with 7470 wins and 10989 losses

Nakamura plays the French.

The highest rated French (average rating) in this week's The Week in Chess:

The highest rated French (Black's rating) in this week's The Week in Chess:

The French is played at the top levels, but less often than the Sicilian and 1.e5.

Do you use opening books in your correspondence games here to help you navigate the sharper lines in e4 openings? That might account for part of the difference.

And I can't believe you guys are debating the merits of the French. The fact that it's used by dozens, if not hundreds, of grandmasters proves that it's good enough for anyone on chess.com, even if nobody in the current FIDE top 10 happens to play it. Or to put it another way - If it's good enough for Alekhine, it's good enough for me.

--Fromper

 Yes, I use books and databases here on chess.com for all my openings, especially against strong players. I sometimes dont if playing an unrated game or against a weak player.

Alekhine wasnt the only WC who liked/played the french with success. Botvinnik and Petrosian did also.  Some people just dont know what they are talking about.

I remember a wild french between Fischer and Tal that ended in a draw ... but I think Tal didnt play the french regularly.

I have a good friend who always refers to the French as Botvinnik's Laboratory...