best variations to play against french defence

Sort:
TwoMove
ThrillerFan wrote:

Just like post 64 last month, this month's tournament sees yet another French get smashed by the Advance Variation - one day I'll have enough evidence to convince all you Tarrasch arguers how much better the Advance is.  3.Nc3 is still best, but the Advance is a close second!

 



Hi ThrillerFan hope this doesn't come across as insulting put don't think you are proving that 6a3 c4 is an an advantage for white put more that you of far better understanding of positions than your opponents. Both your opponents displayed frankly awful positional skills.  For example playing nb3, when you hadn't made any preparation of the b3 break with rb1, and I give up trying to work out what the point of a5 was. 

Way back in '99 was working in U.S for four months, and played in the Columbus and Chicargo openings. Made sweeping assumption a lot of U.S opponents would be playing 1.e4 best by test, and playing in gungho/direct style. It was mostly true.  It is sort of accepted that U.S ratings are about 100 points higher than FIDE ones, but with my patient european style think could get to 2200ish U.S, just my waiting for opponents to self-destruct. Think your opponents would do well to avoid the highly positional 6...c4 in favour of something more direct and tactical 6...Nh6, or 6...f6 or something.

ponz111
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
ponz111 wrote:

X Player the above in red did not say anything about White playing d4 in the KIA. It mentioned White playing d4 "in an open game."

If you look up chess Kings Indian Attack there is a Wikipdia article which indicates the KIA is a White set up with the moves [after 1. e4 and against the French or Sicilian] of d3, Nd2, Nf3, g3,Bg2 in no particular order and the usual idea is to follow with e5 which gives White more space to do a king side attack.

 Well, actually White is not stopped from playing e5 in your positions but if he does play e5?  the e5 move will not be attacking a Knight and thus a loss of a whole tempo.  Also, if Black has played d6 rather than d5 then the move e5? will simply be met by e6 takes d5 and there goes White's spear head of a strong Pawn on e5.

The  point of the KIA is action on the kingside. However if White wants to eschew this possibility he can play in the center but then the Queen on e2 is misplaced. [and besides you do not have a KIA you usually have a close Sicilian]

You mentioned in  your position that "black doesn't have any huge advantage here." I never said he did. What I said is Black has a slight advantage in the position and by that time in the opening White [not Black] should have a slight advantage or at least a even game.

I find it funny that you are agruing that the Qe2 is misplaced and are trying to find ways of giving black the advantage by tranposing the line into a Sicilian instead of keeping it a French.

Do you not believe if blacks best effort is to tranpose out of a French. It might give the white player an advantage getting a French player out of his comfort zone? Into a whole different line. In which he may or may not know the theory of?

I have not been trying to to find ways of giving Black an advantage by transposing the line  into the Sicilian at all.

Again you misread. I am just giving you and others many reasons why 1. e4 e6 2. Qe2 is a bad move and  does not fit into the Kings Indian Attack because of its deficiencies.

Whatever made you think  that I think Black has the advantage or can get the advantage against the  French in the first place?  Nothing I said should lead you to me thinking  that.

I think the French Defense is a very good opening but like most good openings White starts out with the advantage of the first move. I know of no  system for Black with the French Defense where Black will obtain an advantage if White plays correctly. 

Your 2nd paragraph is so convoluted that I am not sure what  you are trying to ask--so I cannot answer whatever  your question is.

Also, you seem to be ignoring the several points I have made.

X_PLAYER_J_X

Since we are talking about the French defense has any1 ever played

The Petrosian variation?



TwoMove

Have attempted to play it. The idea is to meet Qg4 with f5, and later to play in "KingsIndian" style with b6, Bb7 nc6 and 0.0.0, rather than exchaning bad bishop with ba6, although sometimes this is possible, or hitting d4 immediatelty with c5. There is meant to be something wrong with Watson's analysis in orginal "Play the french" from the 80's but can't rember what now.

X_PLAYER_J_X
ponz111 wrote:

I have not been trying to to find ways of giving Black an advantage by transposing the line  into the Sicilian at all.

Again you misread. I am just giving you and others many reasons why 1. e4 e6 2. Qe2 is a bad move and  does not fit into the Kings Indian Attack because of its deficiencies.

Whatever made you think  that I think Black has the advantage or can get the advantage against the  French in the first place?  Nothing I said should lead you to me thinking  that.

I think the French Defense is a very good opening but like most good openings White starts out with the advantage of the first move. I know of no  system for Black with the French Defense where Black will obtain an advantage if White plays correctly. 

Your 2nd paragraph is so convoluted that I am not sure what  you are trying to ask--so I cannot answer whatever  your question is.

Also, you seem to be ignoring the several points I have made.

 

You seem to have a habit of forgetting everything you say after you post it.

Maybe the reason I'm thinking these things is becuase your saying them or hinting to them and than forgetting what you have previously said. So maybe you should reread the Big Red Front Text again that you have said.

Post number 238 Quoted

"I have not been trying to to find ways of giving Black an advantage by transposing the line  into the Sicilian at all."


Post number 226 Quoted

"The sequence you gave is already slightly better for Black"

ponz111 wrote:

X Player when you tell me that I think White strives for d4 playing the KID  as White, I suspect you do not understand KIA.  When you give the move a6? as part of  your move sequence, I also suspect we are not talking about the same variation or you do not understand the variation.  

The sequence you gave is already slightly better for Black because the usual e5 lines are stopped by Black.  e5 is very often the main spearhead for the KIA for White.  It gives White the space advantage on the Kingside that he needs to conduct his kingside attack.  The move Qe2 is designed to help facilitage the e5 spearhead.  In these lines this spearhead is stopped and Black can go ahead with his queenside attack and White does not have a kingside attack to counter balance.

The reason Black was able to stop the normal kingside attack by White is because of the too early Qe2.

So the position is already better [slightly better] for Black on the diagram before your a6 choice.  White should have an even or slightly better game by the move on your diagram and already he has a slight disadvantage.

This does not mean White will lose. It means the better chances on a practical basis are with Black.

All these problems for White can be avoided by 1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2

 or by 1. e4  e6 2. d3  c5 and now White plays for g3 and Bg2 and maybe Re1 before trying the e5 push.

ponz111
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
ponz111 wrote:

I have not been trying to to find ways of giving Black an advantage by transposing the line  into the Sicilian at all.

Again you misread. I am just giving you and others many reasons why 1. e4 e6 2. Qe2 is a bad move and  does not fit into the Kings Indian Attack because of its deficiencies.

Whatever made you think  that I think Black has the advantage or can get the advantage against the  French in the first place?  Nothing I said should lead you to me thinking  that.

I think the French Defense is a very good opening but like most good openings White starts out with the advantage of the first move. I know of no  system for Black with the French Defense where Black will obtain an advantage if White plays correctly. 

Your 2nd paragraph is so convoluted that I am not sure what  you are trying to ask--so I cannot answer whatever  your question is.

Also, you seem to be ignoring the several points I have made.

 

You seem to have a habit of forgetting everything you say after you post it.

Maybe the reason I'm thinking these things is becuase your saying them or hinting to them and than forgetting what you have previously said. So maybe you should reread the Big Red Front Text again that you have said.

Post number 238 Quoted

"I have not been trying to to find ways of giving Black an advantage by transposing the line  into the Sicilian at all."


Post number 226 Quoted

"The sequence you gave is already slightly better for Black"

ponz111 wrote:

X Player when you tell me that I think White strives for d4 playing the KID  as White, I suspect you do not understand KIA.  When you give the move a6? as part of  your move sequence, I also suspect we are not talking about the same variation or you do not understand the variation.  

The sequence you gave is already slightly better for Black because the usual e5 lines are stopped by Black.  e5 is very often the main spearhead for the KIA for White.  It gives White the space advantage on the Kingside that he needs to conduct his kingside attack.  The move Qe2 is designed to help facilitage the e5 spearhead.  In these lines this spearhead is stopped and Black can go ahead with his queenside attack and White does not have a kingside attack to counter balance.

The reason Black was able to stop the normal kingside attack by White is because of the too early Qe2.

So the position is already better [slightly better] for Black on the diagram before your a6 choice.  White should have an even or slightly better game by the move on your diagram and already he has a slight disadvantage.

This does not mean White will lose. It means the better chances on a practical basis are with Black.

All these problems for White can be avoided by 1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2

 or by 1. e4  e6 2. d3  c5 and now White plays for g3 and Bg2 and maybe Re1 before trying the e5 push.

You have a reading comprehension problem if you think anything I said that you highlighted in red is not consistent with other things I have said before or in other parts highlighted in red.

Please explain to me where you seem to find inconsistencies????? 

X_PLAYER_J_X
ponz111 wrote:

You have a reading comprehension problem if you think anything I said that you highlighted in red is not consistent with other things I have said before or in other parts highlighted in red.

Please explain to me where you seem to find inconsistencies????? 

I think your words have spoken volumes enough. You do have inconsistencies. Check below

Post number 226 Quoted

"The sequence you gave is already slightly better for Black"

You first said black was better after a sequence of moves after white has played 2.Qe2. You in fact said slightly better is your exact words. Than you showed a diagram showing how black can instead of play a French but play Sicilian type of position where you believed black was doing slightly better. During this whole process you agrued 2.Qe2 was a bad move. People showed you evidence of Super Grand Masters who played 2.Qe2 you dismissed their games and said "Those games where played in the past". Than a commentor said something to the extend of "what do you consider the past games from 2014-2015?"  Your response was along the lines of well even Super Grand Master play bad move's.

During this whole process I continued to pursuit the fact that Qe2 in a KIA position of the French or the Sicilian is not a bad move. The simple fact is the position is more of a Closed position which makes the game more slow and positional. The placement of the queen whether it loses a tempo to move again or not is irrelevant in a slow positional paced game. The queen on e2 in fact does add some benefit's. Causing black to be extra causious on the e file becuase of the possible queen and rook battery. Also threats of pushing the e pawn and exchanging the e pawn can be attributed to the extra power the queen influence's on the e2 square.

After it was all said and down you began to flip flop like a fish out of water. Changing your agruement completely around. You were flip floppy like a pancake. For a moment, I almost called you Romney instead of Ponz. You than began leaving post like the one below

Post number 238 Quoted

"I have not been trying to to find ways of giving Black an advantage by transposing the line  into the Sicilian at all."

So you said 2.Qe2 is a bad move, You said black has a slight advantage in a Sicilian diagram that you posted, You dismissed GM game's as being in the past, You dismissed commentors saying some games where played in 2014-2015 with words such as even GM's play bad move's, You than challenged commentors to find you 2 game's of SGM playing 2.Qe2, You than tryed to question my understanding of the KIA.

You have done all of this and you want all of us to believe you done so with the intension of not giving black an advantage? "I have not been trying to to find ways of giving Black an advantage by transposing the line  into the Sicilian at all."

The fact you posted a Sicilian Defense diagram with the moves 1.e4 e6  2.Qe2 c5 is not becuase you was trying to get an advantage with black and exploit 2.Qe2 NO NO. You did it becuase every1 on this forum has been talking about the french to much and you felt the Sicilian Defense was feeling lonely and being left out of this thread.

I think we should meet again. Hi my name is Martin I'm looking for my son Nemo is your name Dori by any chance? I have good news for you though. I hear the IHOP( International House Of Pancakes) is looking for a new Manager. They can use someone with your skills and talent Ponzi. You flip flop with the best of them and I think you would make the fluffest pancakes this side of the Mississippi.





X_PLAYER_J_X
TwoMove wrote:

Have attempted to play it. The idea is to meet Qg4 with f5, and later to play in "KingsIndian" style with b6, Bb7 nc6 and 0.0.0, rather than exchaning bad bishop with ba6, although sometimes this is possible, or hitting d4 immediatelty with c5. There is meant to be something wrong with Watson's analysis in orginal "Play the french" from the 80's but can't rember what now.

Yeah I have never played the Petrosian variation myself. However, it does seem very interesting. I wonder how well it scores against Nc3 line's.

ponz111
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote   ponz in blue
ponz111 wrote:

You have a reading comprehension problem if you think anything I said that you highlighted in red is not consistent with other things I have said before or in other parts highlighted in red.

Please explain to me where you seem to find inconsistencies????? 

I think your words have spoken volumes enough. You do have inconsistencies. Check below

Post number 226 Quoted

"The sequence you gave is already slightly better for Black"

You first said black was better after a sequence of moves after white has played 2.Qe2. You in fact said slightly better is your exact words. Than you showed a diagram  show the diagram you are referring to.     showing how black can instead of play a French but play Sicilian type of position where you believed black was doing slightly better. slightly better than what? maybe slightly better than one of your bad versions of 2. Qe2    During this whole process you agrued 2.Qe2 was a bad move.    People showed you evidence of Super Grand Masters who played 2.Qe2   it is a bad move   you dismissed their games and said "Those games where played in the past". as I have rpeatedly commented even super grand masters can play bad moves in the opening. I can give examples of this    Than a commentor said something to the extend of "what do you consider the past games from 2014-2015?"  Your response was along the lines of well even Super Grand Master play bad move's. I said give me games of two grandmasters who have played 2. Qe2 in recent games--this includes the past two years.  so far nobody has.

During this whole process I continued to pursuit the fact that Qe2 in a KIA position of the French or the Sicilian is not a bad move. The simple fact is the position is more of a Closed position which makes the game more slow and positional. The placement of the queen whether it loses a tempo to move again or not is irrelevant in a slow positional paced game. Here you are wrong, even losing a move in a closed game can lead to a disadvantage and Qe2 on the 2nd move has not yet made it a closed game.   fact does add some benefit's. Causing   black to be extra causious on the e file becuase of the possible queen and rook battery. Black actually finds it easier to prevent e5 for the reasons I gave including  Black's d6  move.         pushing the e pawn and exchanging the e pawn can be attributed to the extra power the queen influence's on the e2 square. The queen on e2 is more vulnerable and makes it harder for White to play e5 as I have repeatedly shown.

After it was all said and down you began to flip flop like a fish out of water. Changing your agruement completely around. You were flip floppy like a pancake. For a moment, I almost called you Romney instead of Ponz. You than began leaving post like the one below

Post number 238 Quoted

"I have not been trying to to find ways of giving Black an advantage by transposing the line  into the Sicilian at all."

So you said 2.Qe2 is a bad move, You said black has a slight advantage in a Sicilian diagram that you posted, You dismissed GM game's as being in the past, You dismissed commentors saying some games where played in 2014-2015 with words such as even GM's play bad move's, You than challenged commentors to find you 2 game's of SGM playing 2.Qe2, You than tryed to question my understanding of the KIA.  What do all these statements ave anything to do with my statement that I have not been trying to find ways of giving Black an advantage by transposing into a Sicilian?? Me saying Qe2 is a bad move has nothing to say about me looking or not looking for a way to find a good way for giving an advantage to Black by translating into a Sicilian.  In fact in any sound opening Black cannot obtain the advantage if White plays correctly.

You have done all of this and you want all of us to believe you done so with the intension of not giving black an advantage? I  h ave not been trying to to find ways of giving Black an advantage by transposing the line  into the Sicilian at all."  WOW! where did you ever get the idea that I had a plot in the back of my head to try and give Black an advantage in any sound opening???? You are reading something that I have not said or implied.

You should know I started a whole column which has hundreds of postings of how the game of chess is a draw with best play by both sides!

The fact you posted a Sicilian Defense diagram with the moves 1.e4 e6  2.Qe2 c5 is not becuase you was trying to get an advantage with black and exploit 2.Qe2 NO NO. You did it becuase every1 on this forum has been talking about the french to much and you felt the Sicilian Defense was feeling lonely and being left out of this thread.  You are nuts!  This is one of the most weird thing I have ever seen posted that somehow I had a hidden notion that the Sicilian Defense was feeling lonely after being left out of this thread!  I do not even play the Sicilian Defense.

I think we should meet again. Hi my name is Martin I'm looking for my son Nemo is your name Dori by any chance? I have good news for you though. I hear the IHOP( International House Of Pancakes) is looking for a new Manager. They can use someone with your skills and talent Ponzi. You flip flop with the best of them and I think you would make the fluffest pancakes this side of the Mississippi.

Your postings are weird. Instead of giving a good response you come up with this theory that I am trying to add in the Sicilian Defense to this discourse as I felt the Sicilian Defense was lonely!





ponz111
Wernher-von-Braun wrote:

@dpnorman

You are a silly fellow. My point obviously flew way over your head, as I suspect a great many things do. The arrogant one is you. Most people would be embarassed to admit they were rated 1200 uscf. If you were a little kid, that would be understandable....but how old are you again?

Let's see you gain 600 points now that your rating is out of the chromosome-deficiency range. You're so desperate to try to impress people that you fail to recognize the obvious. I suspect this is a daily occurance for you. And you're still trying to defend your "right" to incorrectly write notation. If you had a quarter as much brainpower as you do stubborness, you might just be capable of making it over 2000.

Wernher  You are very insulting. There is no need to be insulting about another's ratings.  Did you ever consider your own rating may not be that high to someone else?  Did someone else insult you? 

erikido23

I was taught the petrosian variation by a friend (who is a life master) and even beat him once later.  Haven't tried it in a long time though

I_Am_Second
Wernher-von-Braun wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
Wernher-von-Braun wrote:

@dpnorman

You are a silly fellow. My point obviously flew way over your head, as I suspect a great many things do. The arrogant one is you. Most people would be embarassed to admit they were rated 1200 uscf. If you were a little kid, that would be understandable....but how old are you again?

Let's see you gain 600 points now that your rating is out of the chromosome-deficiency range. You're so desperate to try to impress people that you fail to recognize the obvious. I suspect this is a daily occurance for you. And you're still trying to defend your "right" to incorrectly write notation. If you had a quarter as much brainpower as you do stubborness, you might just be capable of making it over 2000.

Wernher  You are very insulting. There is no need to be insulting about another's ratings.  Did you ever consider your own rating may not be that high to someone else?  Did someone else insult you? 

Ponz, not that this is any of your business. But i can see your panties are in knots over my comments about low ratings, because your ratings are very low also, so your feelings of weakness and inferiority are overwhelming for you.

First of all, the ratings DO matter. They give an idea of both one's skill and one's knowledge. So when one is arguing something to do with chess, then the rating is certainly relevent. I'm sorry you weren't able to figure that out on your own, but I'm not surprised.

Secondly, my ratings are all high by any yardstick. For a guy who didn't take up chess until his mid 20's and has put relatively little time and effort into studying, i've done exceptionally well as a strong amateur player. You, on the other hand, are a weak amateur player, even though you have put in great effort into trying to improve. Perhaps if you were less of a quidnuc and spent less time picking fights in forums and more time practicing, your ratings wouldn't be so embarassing.

I know you will do what every reincarnation of "the internet troll" does, but considering your act isnt even remotely new, or original, and studies prove that you do this for several reasons.  But as long as you get attention you will continue with your act.  This will be my last interaction with you.  I feel sorry for you actually.

RubiksRevenge
Wernher-von-Braun wrote:

Here we go....all the low rated, low IQ cretins are coming out of the woodwork to defend their right to be dumb!

@i_am_second

The only one putting on an act here is you, Mr. 1300. You're following me around and harassing me because you're nothing but a troll with nothing better to do. You feel sorry for me? LMAO. What a joke! You're a weakling in every sense of the word. I don't feel sorry for you....I feel sorry for your mother. I bet there isn't a day that goes by when she doesn't regret her decision not to abort.

You have this completely backwards. You're the one begging for MY attention. You're the one following me around, from forum to forum and desperately trying to get me to notice you. Apparently you're lacking attention from your parents and are seeking it elsewhere.

I love trolls, can you write someting nasty or mean about me too.

I_Am_Second
erikido23 wrote:

I was taught the petrosian variation by a friend (who is a life master) and even beat him once later.  Haven't tried it in a long time though

Erik, we are still waiting for you to show up at Dennys :-)

ponz111
Wernher-von-Braun wrote:

Here's where ponzo is going to try to BS everyone and claim to be a 2188 player, even though he hasn't played a rated otb tournament in over a decade and BOTH of his live ratings here are in the 1600's.

You are wrong on three counts.  the 1600 rating is not mine. I did not play the games which resulted in that rating.

You are also wrong about the the low 2188 old rating. That year, 1974, I met the requirements for USCF master and for the whole year of 1974 had a 2438 performance rating over 3 tournaments.

After that I improved my rating to over 2500.

but the point is youi should not treat posters like you do.

kleelof
Wernher-von-Braun wrote:

You gotta love these "born-again" religious wing nuts!

This is the same loser who was here last week calling everyone idiots and talking up his rating.

ponz111
Wernher-von-Braun wrote:

@ponzo

No, I'm  not wrong. I'm 100% correct and you know it. The 1600 rating IS yours. I can see it with my own two eyes. In fact, I see TWO 1600 ratings which are both yours. You can make up whatever nonsense your like....your lies are easy enough to confirm for anyone who wants to take the effort to view your profile page.

I'm not wrong about the other stuff either. You're continuing to tell lies and make up nonsense. You don't actually play rated over-the-board chess anymore....not for many many years (decades?). You're too scared to show up at a rated tourament becuase you know you aren't even worth 2000 and would only embarass yourself. You can go on about so-called "correspondence" ratings which are meaningless. Everyone and their dog knows how you did that. I'm talking about ratings where you were forced to your only your own mind to come up with the moves....and in that form of chess you are a 1600 player.

Please stop begging for my attention. If I want to spend time with a lonely geriatric, i'll go visit one at a retirement home.

You are completely wrong. One of the 1600 rating was from games played by my son.  He played on my account and I did not know it until later.

The other 1600 rating is from a start of 1200 [which is one reason I do not play on chess.com except vote chess and exhibitions]  If you look closely you will see I gave two exhibitions where I played the Black pieces. I scored very well in both exhibitions and there were quite a few FMs and NMs I played  

Also it is not a lie that I met the requirements for USCF master way back in 1974 and then continued playing Correspondence Chess and got to above 2500 and won the USA Championship with a score in the Finals of 13 wins and 1 draw and no losses.  

You may say correspondence ratings are not meaningful but when I played there was a master from Chicago USCF master who came in 14th out of 15 players.

Whatever you have done in chess does not remotely compare to what I have done.  I am telling you this to set you straight.

 But the point is you are very wrong to disparage players whatever their ratings and everyone can see what kind of person you are.

ponz111
Wernher-von-Braun wrote:

@ponz

No gramps, I'm not completely wrong. YOU are completely wrong. I am 100% correct. Since you probably turned fifty before email was introduced into popular culture....I'm going to take a screenshot of your profile page at the bottom of this comment so you can see for yourself, as you probably don't even know how to access it.

What we clearly see here is a 1648 bullet rating, and a 1656 blitz rating. We also see a paltry 1288 tactics rating. Nothing like the 2500 you are claiming to be. Why continue telling lies when everyone can see the obvious truth for themselves? I realize that at your age people have their good days and bad ones. Today must fall into the latter category.

The only thing you have set straight here is that you're a chronic liar who should be sent straight to the looney bin!

Once again, please go beg someone else for attention. I find you to be really dull and annoying.

 

I have never used tactics trainer. Also I do not play bullet or blitz. Those ratings are from when my son played on my account. He played during a visit and I did not know about it until after he left.

You can call me a liar all you want but what I say is the truth.

Tell me this how many grandmasters have you ever beaten?

How many former USA champions have you ever beaten?

How many chess tournaments have you ever won?

Have you ever had a USCF performance rating as high as 2438 for a whole year?

The first game you ever played in an over the board tournament what was the rating of your opponent and what was the result and did you play White or Black?

How many tournaments did you play in before you won a tournament?

In any event, you are wrong in your statements.  You are also someone who likes to put others down.

kleelof
Wernher-von-Braun wrote:

so he takes out his anger at himself  and his mother by trolling and trying to ruin forum threads.

From the looks of things, you beat me to it here.

RubiksRevenge
Wernher-von-Braun wrote:

No, I'm the topical poster who actually made significant contributions to this thread. You're the troll who is posting only to harass and annoy because that's all you're capable of.

Your the jackass that posts idiotic rants about fellow posters ratings. If you were truly topically posting you would only post about the topic.