Well, the line on the diagram can be considered as a subvariation of French Advance. 
Triangle Caro-French
Sort:
Sep 12, 2017
0
#2
Sep 12, 2017
0
#3
Well, the basic Triangle Caro-French is characterized by the pawn structure 2DEd1ce. So it's
Instead of 3. Nf3 white could play 3. Nc3, 3. Nd2 or 3. Bd3 (within the same basic pawn structure).
Sep 13, 2017
0
#4
DeirdreSkye: Are U able to say something interesting, constructive or funny? or U, like a little dog, will bark at anything that I post ?!? Suggested by engines or not, this Triangle Caro-French is not the best but still a quite reasonable system.
Sep 13, 2017
0
#5
DeirdreSkye wrote:
There is nothing reasonable in playing both ...c6 and ...e6.
The point of ...e6 is to attack the centre fast.
The point of ...c6 is to develop Bc8 first and then attack the centre.
So one cancels the other.That makes them together highly unreasonable.
Your reasoning would imply that Semi-Slav has no sense too. 
Sep 13, 2017
0
#6
DeirdreSkye wrote:
I have seen none till now but I still hope that you actually have something and you are not just an engine muppet.
Why do U even care about that and think about my chess skills ?!? I have the right to use engines for opening preparation. Concentrate yourself on your own performance!
Sep 13, 2017
0
#7
So, what does your engine evaluate the position after 4Ne7 because my copy of Fritz 13 already gives this as 0.77 to White i.e. not that good.
Sep 13, 2017
0
#8
repac3161 wrote:
So, what does your engine evaluate the position after 4Ne7 because my copy of Fritz 13 already gives this as 0.77 to White i.e. not that good.
Stockfish 8 on lichess evaluates it at+0.4 (1 line, d=23, Cloud).
Sep 13, 2017
0
#9
intermediatedinoz wrote:
if you download stockfish, which I did a couple of years ago, not using it right now, at 30+ level the French is best, according to stockfish obviously, Caro is nowhere near
Yeah, that's right. 
Sep 13, 2017
0
#10
The local Stockfish evaluates the position on the diagram at +0.3 (d=24, 1 line).
not the best of openings in my opinion
Sep 13, 2017
0
#12
I have two main problems with this "Triangle-Caro-French" opening:
1) The point of playing 1...c6 is to defend the 2...d5 pawn instead of defending it with ...e6, allowing you to develop your "bad" QB to f5 or g4 before blocking it in with ...e6. So why are you now blocking in your QB if you bothered to play ...c6?
2) The typical counterattack in the Advance Variation's of the Caro or the French begins with ...c5. The tradeoff in the Caro is that you have to take 2 moves to get that pawn to c5 in exchange for getting your QB developed early. In the French you are stuck with a poorly developed QB but play ...c5 in one move. In this opening you get the worst of both worlds: you need two moves to play ...c5 and you still have your QB stuck behind your pawns.
so u transpose into this advance variation :
Ne7 why not, but c6 at this point... Then c5 later i guess?
A bit of common sense...
Sep 13, 2017
0
#14
Thanks to MickinMD and IM poucin for good and relevant critics of this opening. 
Sep 13, 2017
0
#15
Yigor is basically the openings version of StupidGM. Block them both.
Sep 13, 2017
0
#16
DeirdreSkye: MickinMD (as always) and IM poucin (this time) made their critics normally without back thoughts, filthy words etc. It makes the difference.
Sep 13, 2017
0
#17
RookSacrifice wrote:
Yigor is basically the openings version of StupidGM. Block them both.
And who are U to judge others ?!? It the first time that I see U in the Opening Forum. Just block yourself.
Sep 14, 2017
0
#19
melvinbluestone wrote:
Much as I hate to sound a negative note here, I have to agree with most of the naysayers. This is like a French, but you'll need two moves to get the c5 pawn lever in. Or, it's like a Caro-Kann, but you've blocked in your LSB. I just don't see any problems for white after 5.c4, except maybe death and taxes........
Yeah, it was not a great invention useful more for classification purposes than for real games. Nevertheless, I tried Caro-French in several games, it went differently and without losses of tempo or any problems for black (still in progress).
Just a few statistics I`d like to share with my fellow Chessplayers on this somewhat interesting thread. Granted, I mostly teach kids, play correspondence Chess on ICCF, USCF and Chess.com Vote Chess games and I am mostly retired from OTB competitions. Nevertheless, I think that it is vital to check out the percentages of various continuations especially in correspondence games. Here is what I gleaned from ChessBase 13`s database with the sequence in question of 1 e4, c6; 2 d4, e6; 3 Nf3, d5; 4 e5, Ne7.
Moves Games Transpositions Score * Last played
4...Ne7 60 2 66.1% 2016
Now the breakdown of the correspondence games in the database (of which is derived from the above list):
4...Ne7 10 - 60.0% -
* Scores are from White`s point of view.
In conclusion, it seems that this line is a bit risky and in correspondence games it could be downright fatal. Except for the 3...d5 move, this sequence seems to resemble the "hedgehog" concept of putting most of one`s pawns and pieces only up to the third rank. This is an idea that many mock (I don`t play it myself) but it can be not that easy to "crash through" and it can offer some counterattacking possibilities. The blocking of the Bishop on c8 seems inconsistent with the Caro-Kann Defence opening strategy and if you look at it with "French" eyes having to move the c-pawn twice to get counterplay is just a tempo loser. As far as surprize value goes, the OTB results simply do not support that (certainly at the higher levels, naturally).
This is analogous to the Triangle Slav and appeared in the discussion here:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/caro-kann-bierwisch-variation-2-e6-aka-caro-french
Any thoughts / ideas ?