Queen's gambit advance variation

The best answer for me is 4. c3
It transposes to The French Advance Var.
That's what a beginner like me say.

No, it doesn't.  In the French, black has a pawn on e6, blocking in his light-square bishop.  Here, he has no such difficulties.

The French Advance isn't considered particularly testing for black in the first place.  With his bishop on f5, it's just simply good for him...far better than any legitimate line of the French.

You are not playing a Queen's gambit anything (starting out 1.e4 c6 is Caro Kann) ... this is Caro Kann advance variation botvinnik defense (c5) here's a link in the game explorer, White has several good options:

http://www.chess.com/explorer/index.html?id=3496&ply=6&black=0

Here's an absolutely awesome game from Alexi Shirov in this line... It's 79 moves but if you pay attention you won't be disappointed. Shirov's sac Q for N and R around move 21  is hard to believe.

yeah caro kann advance variation . my mistake :)

WOW!!! SOOO MANY Grandmasters commenting on this. One  even decided to be a... how can i put this with respect. A person that addresses a woman without the proper respect. Even a Grandmaster wouldn't respond in such a manner. Dudes.. seriously. GROW UP. The funny thing about it is that True Beginner would SMASH the "loser" RexRacer. SHE IS RATED HIGHER THAN U!!! *sigh*. Guess ignorance knows no bounds.

Conzipe is the ONLY one that has ne weight with his words. NOT myself or especially Mr. REXRACER. It beguiles me how ppl with a rating below 2300 speak in  a manner as if they know it all. GEEZ!!! ( Sorry but i get offended by arrogance. More so when its toward a woman). Carry on Gentleman.

Men, it doesn't matter, at all.
I'm also still learning.

TrueBeginner is nowhere near my rating.  Given the number of games she's played here, and the attendant score, we can see her true OTB rating is most likely 1400 or so.

Mine is considerably higher.

Jesse: go fock yourself you ignorant twat.  When you don't know enough to accept the advice of your superiors in life and intellect, you are doomed to a life of decay and malaise.  (Note: I have no reservations about being rude to you -- since you've shown you earned it.  Again: fock you you simple inbred twit.)

But I showed no disrespect to anyone before you.  The line posted does, in fact, NOT transpose to an advance French.  That statement is categorically wrong.  I was right, and she, wrong.  That you don't see that -- AND that you consider it some sort of rhetorical shortcoming on MY behalf -- marks you as even more ignorant and befuddled than I originally made out.  That you see correcting faulty information as rudeness says a great deal about both your worldview and your station in life.

In conclusion: know your role.  Shut the fock up.

Conzipe: Rybka analyses to the contrary, the proposed lines that allow black his way in terms of development in no way suggest that the situation merits an "or so it was once thought."  What they suggest, and in quite damning terms, is that black scores at least 60% from every line springing from the c3 continuation.  When white has limited his own developmental choices while doing nothing to compromise black's, the result must be favorable for the second player.  And so it has turned out to be over the course of time.

Looking online, and filtering so that only games featuring 2400's and above show, one can see that this line has scored a whopping 0% for white this year.

And the only players of that level who will essay it as white are guys like Kogan, who have a penchant for playing from equal or presumably inferior opening lines.

I beg you to reconsider your stance, but thank you for not being an imbecilic dimwit of the sort this forum seems to delight in sheltering.

TrueBeliever: if it hurt your feelings that I pointed out you were wrong, I apologize.  Nonetheless, you were wrong.  Get over it, cupcake.

I find this rather amusing. True_Beginner has played 1790 blitz games on chess.com alone, and is currently above 1800. This is more than enough games to say that her rating is stable, and 1800 on live blitz is certainly stronger than 1400 OTB.

Meanwhile, you have played a whopping 7 correspondence games, and 0 live chess games. Now, it is true that this is probably not enough games to determine your playing strength, but really, with only 7 games and a rating of 1508 (which would most likely be 1000-1200 in live blitz) how can you go about claiming to be stronger than her? Unless your rating rapidly increases over the next dozen games or so, then you cannot possible justify your claim. I have my doubts about it increasing much either, considering you already lost to a couple people in the 1200-1550 range (which is like 1000 otb).

So yeah, she is nowhere near your rating...Currently she is a lot stronger than you unless you can prove otherwise (why not try your hand at live blitz and see?).

I am not trying to take away from any of the advice you gave in this thread, and I actually agree with most of it. I am just saying that before claiming to be stronger than somebody, you should have evidence to back it up. Cheers.