Questions about the French Defense

I'm not a super experienced player, but I have played enough to know that I personally enjoy playing 1.d4 games far more often than 1.e4. However, when I am black, I see a lot of 1.e4 and despite everyone saying that beginners should answer with 1...e5, and when I play live I usually do, but I just really despise those games because I feel like I have a tough time getting equalization and they feel very drawish unless someone hangs a piece or get very very theoretical. I played the Scandinavian defense, and while I had some success, I sometimes got myself into trouble too. I've started some daily games with Sicilian, and while I think it's fine for me in the daily format where I can take time and learn as I go, I can tell that it may be a bit above my level if I played live. So I have contemplated the French Defense. My big worry with it though is that 1.) It looks like it could become a closed position easily, which I am not sure I want to tackle, and 2.) I looks lovely like it could take a while to develop one of the bishops. But one of the reasons I am considering it is because it looks like it doesn't give white a lot to work with early on, it doesn't look like it will require as much theory as the Sicilian, and is not as risky as the Scandinavian. So I ask those with more experience, what do these games look like? Is it too advanced for the 1200-1400 crowd? Is it more often just semi-open than just closed? Does it lead to sharp tactics eventually in the middlegame or do is require quiet, solid positional play?

Whatever opening you choose to play.  You need to gain some understanding of "why"  the pieces, and pawns go where they go.  Find an opening you like to play, find GM games and play over them.  Notice where the pieces, and pawns go, and try and understand why. 

Get a good detailed book that explains each move.  Books like the Move by Move series are excellent.  Chessable.com has some very good pay, and free books with explanation.

The openings you pick should be openings you enjoy playing.  And not chosen because they are "aggressive" or "tactical"  or some other exciting sounding description.

SoupTime4- I hear what you are saying that the openings should be one I love playing more than because of any descriptor, but that is kind of the problem.  I haven't really found one that I have loved playing with yet after 1.e4.  For reasons more due to my personality than any fancy descriptor, I want a black opening that either gives white no obvious attacks early or at least allows me to force white to make moves early or tempt white to make moves early that don't really help them develop.  I want games that are a least semi-open. And I also want to play a game that requires some intuition instead of ones that a beginner has probably seen a million times. I would rather play more attacking than waiting. Maybe there isn't one that gives me everything, maybe any of them could give me what I want if I play them right. Maybe I should just suck it up and learn some 1...e5 lines for black.  I just haven't found one yet that I have loved.  I have enjoyed playing Scandanavian and Sicilian more than 1...e5, but would I say I LOVE them? Probably not for the Scandanavian if I am playing someone I suspect may be better than me, and I still haven't played the Sicilian enough to say one way of the other.  I really do plan to just pick one that I primarily use for black just like I primarily play Queens Gambit for white, but I just haven't found it yet.

"I want a black opening that either gives white no obvious attacks early or at least allows me to force white to make moves early or tempt white to make moves early that don't really help them develop. "

This opening does not exist, and this may also be part of the problem why you cannot find an opening you like to play. 

"I want games that are a least semi-open."

List some openings that meet this qualification.

"And I also want to play a game that requires some intuition instead of ones that a beginner has probably seen a million times."

All chess requires intuition.  And what leads to a good understanding of openings is playing the same openings over and over.

"I would rather play more attacking than waiting. "
Do you know what it takes to achieve a position that allows you to have attacking chances?

I have been playing chess for over 30 years, and still haven't found an opening with black against 1.e4 that i am completely comfortable with.

Your input has been helpful, and it does appear that I am looking at it the wrong way. Playing black is just different than playing white and no opening changes that fact. Part of why I have drifted toward the Sicilian is because there is a chance for an early pawn exchange, my c pawn for his d pawn, just like the Queen's Gambit which I love. But at the end of the day repetition, common sense, and executing the fundamentals will make any opening fine.

Their is a quote that i have always loved, and believe is so true.

"The opening serves one purpose.  To get to a playable middle game."

I suppose a more reasonable expectation of what I want is an early pawn exchange where I keep my d pawn at least and hopefully my e pawn too

There is a really good FREE book on chessable:

Hey @Soup... do you like @Bacon as well?

The food? Yes.

The former member? Yes.

And keep in mind that this is part of what got kindaspongey muted.  So please don't go there.

 

For some reason the search term perfume brings up a bunch on the French Defense from this blogger, whom I understand to be a member of this site.
http://chessskill.blogspot.com/search?q=perfume

I think, however, that the second post in this thread is very useful. Moreover, I recommend playing very quickly through a great many games--the Explorer here is a useful tool--in order to get a feel for any opening that you want to try. Then, play some correspondence games in the opening.

 

There is no one way to categorize the French Defense.  You simply have to understand it!  You cannot say that it is automatically positional or tactical or any single category.  You have to understand tactics, strategy, pawn structure, bad pieces, how to handle bad pieces, etc.

 

While having the center blocked is commonplace in the French (Advance, Winawer, Steinitz), you can also end up with a Symmetrical position (Exchange w/o 4.c4), Isolated Queen Pawn for Black (Open Tarrasch), Isolated Queen Pawn for White (Exchnage with 4.c4), or Isolated Pawn vs Backwards Pawn (Closed Tarrasch)

 

There are lines that tend to be slow with a lot of maneuvering (Advance French with 6...c4, Winawer Lines with ...c4 and ...O-O-O by Black, etc), there are others that are a little dull (Exchange), and there are others with a raging attack for both sides (Winawer Poisoned Pawn).

 

You can't categorize the French!  Anybody can argue something like "It frequently leads to positions with a blocked center", but you cannot outright say to my face without lying that the French is automatically a closed defense with a blocked center.  Common?  Yes!  Automatic?  Absolutely NOT!

 

Openings cannot be categorized with a cookie-cutter approach if you plan to get anywhere beyond 1600.  You actually have to take the time to fully understand each and every move, and why 2 or 3 moves may be ok and the rest are bad!  For example, why after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 are 3...Bb4, 3...Nf6, and 3...dxe4 all fine, but something like 3...c5 is dubious?  Why after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 are 3...c5, 3...Nf6, and 3...dxe4 all fine, but 3...Bb4 is highly dubious?  This is all stuff you have to put the time and effort into.  Not whether the French is open, closed, tactical, positional, slow, fast, etc.

wyoav211933.....you mentioned that you play the scandinavian defence. Have you tried any of the gambits out of the scandinavian defence? 1 e4 d5 2. pxp  Nf6 3. c4 c6 (scandinavian gambit) 1. e4 d5 2. pxp Nf6 3. c4 e6 (icelandic gambit)  1. e4 d5 2. pxp Nf6 3. d4 Bg4 (portuguese gambit)

 

Playing a gambit will give you some of what you want....for instance.

"I want a black opening that either gives white no obvious attacks early or at least allows me to force white to make moves early or tempt white to make moves early that don't really help them develop. "

this perfectly describes what the dream situation of playing a gambit...the only thing it costs you a pawn.

"I want games that are at least semi-open."

this can happen even if your opponent declines the gambit. 1 e4 d5 2. pxp  Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. d4 cx d 5. Nc3(Panov-Botivnnik attack) which often leads to an isolated d pawn game for white... It will give white some attacking chances to compensate him for this pawn weakness though.

If you play the icelandic gambit and your opponent declines the pawn offer the position is a line out of the exchange french. (1. e4 d5 2. pxp Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. c4 pxp) where I guess the play could be similar to the panov botivnnik attack but somehow I feel like the french exchange position isnt as dangerous for black. Ive played both positions from the white side....but anyway they are semi open/open positions so you might like it. I dont have any experience playing against the portuguese gambit.

"I would rather play more attacking than waiting. "

Again playing a gambit may help you get this. Its a risky thing to do and Im not sure how these gambits rank in the soundness category in the world of gambit openings but its the only thing I can think of that would fit your criteria. The other downside is that you will have to learn how to defend against the isolated pawn positions. The side with the isolated pawn can get good attacking chances if he really knows what he is doing. Anyway hope this helps.

 

French defence? Like KID. Either commit and put in serious study, or don't bother. No short cuts bro. Sorry.

Chess is always like that, regardless of your opening choice.

I think you should try french defense, at least against me - statistically i am losing 70% of the times as white when facing the french defense. It is super-solid for black and really hard to play against. It feels like black has more attacking ideas available than white, but maybe it is just me who is really bad at facing the french. 

If you don't want to have problems with your Bc8, play the Caro-Kann (1.e4 c6). And if you want to have an interesting game in which both sides have dangerous attacks, play the Larsen variation (1.e4 c6 d4 2.d5 3.Nd2/Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gxf6). 

One huge advantage of the French at lower ratings is that everyone seems to play the advance or the exchange variation against it. So learn those well, and prepare either the Rubinstein or the Fort Knox (both straightforward, if unexciting) for the the rare occasions when White plays 3.Nc3 or 3.Nd2, and you're all ready to go.

I dont play the caro-Kann but if I did that would be the variation I would want to play. The only problem is white doesnt have to play Nd2(Nc3). Interestingly enough there is a similar position in the french. 1.e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 pxp 4. Nxp Nf6 5. Bg5 Be7 6. BxN  gxf6. Its called the Burn variation I think. I tried it a few times in blitz and it tends to lead to double edge positions.

"One huge advantage of the French at lower ratings is that everyone seems to play the advance or the exchange variation against it." So true!! I play the Rubinstein Nd7 but I could almost never use it.