Oh wow I have gramar problesm adn cant spell probrly, can you teach me.
best variations to play against french defence
Sort:
Your too stupid to know that I am stupid.
Whoops, You're too stupid to know that I am stupid.
ponz111 wrote:
My statement was not untrue because it was a statement about now.
"you will not see strong gms playing the exact sequences." [notice it says will not see strong gms PLAYING--this implies "now"]
You can see strong gms have played the sequences in the past if you look up old records but my statement has to do with current grandmasters playing the sequences now. They may have learned from experience not to play those sequences and thus do not play them now.
However all of this is not very relevant to finding the best moves against the French. So if someone wants to make a separate forum on my statement they can.
But it is not relevant here and I will not respond to this any more except in a separate forum.
lol oh man. What a vague route. So now "playing" means "now". Well what in the world qualifies as "now"?
Anyway, Nepomniachtchi played it in November 2014, Nakamura in June of 2014 and Hou Yifan in June of 2014. Do these dates qualify as "now"? In the technica sense of course they do not, but then again, nothing does. Thus why your argument sucks.
You know what you meant. Now suck it up and admit you got a little carried away homie.
Arawn_of_Annuvin wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
My statement was not untrue because it was a statement about now.
"you will not see strong gms playing the exact sequences." [notice it says will not see strong gms PLAYING--this implies "now"]
You can see strong gms have played the sequences in the past if you look up old records but my statement has to do with current grandmasters playing the sequences now. They may have learned from experience not to play those sequences and thus do not play them now.
However all of this is not very relevant to finding the best moves against the French. So if someone wants to make a separate forum on my statement they can.
But it is not relevant here and I will not respond to this any more except in a separate forum.
lol oh man. What a vague route. So now "playing" means "now". Well what in the world qualifies as "now"?
Anyway, Nepomniachtchi played it in November 2014, Nakamura in June of 2014 and Hou Yifan in June of 2014. Do these dates qualify as "now"? In the technica sense of course they do not, but then again, nothing does. Thus why your argument sucks.
You know what you meant. Now suck it up and admit you got a little carried away homie.
If these players played 1. e4 e6 2. Qe2 in serious games [not simul or speed games] then, I will say I am wrong. Please give more information and if the last two great players you mentioned played the move in a serious game, I will be glad to say I was wrong.
I have no problem in saying I am wrong when I am wrong. I have done this several times.
ponz111 wrote:
Arawn_of_Annuvin wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
My statement was not untrue because it was a statement about now.
"you will not see strong gms playing the exact sequences." [notice it says will not see strong gms PLAYING--this implies "now"]
You can see strong gms have played the sequences in the past if you look up old records but my statement has to do with current grandmasters playing the sequences now. They may have learned from experience not to play those sequences and thus do not play them now.
However all of this is not very relevant to finding the best moves against the French. So if someone wants to make a separate forum on my statement they can.
But it is not relevant here and I will not respond to this any more except in a separate forum.
lol oh man. What a vague route. So now "playing" means "now". Well what in the world qualifies as "now"?
Anyway, Nepomniachtchi played it in November 2014, Nakamura in June of 2014 and Hou Yifan in June of 2014. Do these dates qualify as "now"? In the technica sense of course they do not, but then again, nothing does. Thus why your argument sucks.
You know what you meant. Now suck it up and admit you got a little carried away homie.
If these players played 1. e4 e6 2. Qe2 in serious games [not simul or speed games] then, I will say I am wrong. Please give more information and if the last two great players you mentioned played the move in a serious game, I will be glad to say I was wrong.
I have no problem in saying I am wrong when I am wrong. I have done this several times.
Nice try. I know that you're a correspondence player and therefore have access to ChessBase's online database. You looked up these games and found that Nakamura and Nepomniachtchi played it in the Dubai and Tal Memorial blitz tournaments, respectively. You excluded Hou Yifan (who recently played in the A-class tournament in Wijk aan Zee) because she played it in the FIDE Women's Grand Prix.
Your original statement was false. It's not really debatable.
EDIT: You said "last two" but I'm going to assume you meant Nepo and Naka.
Arawn
Actually you are very wrong. I did not look up any games at all. I do not even know how to look up such games as I am computer not literate. I just guessed if these players played such moves it would be in a fast player tournament or a simul.
I have not played correspondence for many years so am not up on using data bases. [if someone would like to message me and explain how to use these, please do] You have to realize I played correspondence chess before chess engines and before data bases.
However even though these last two players [I do not know who is Nepomniactchi is] played these moves in blitz tournaments I will concede I was wrong. I repeat when I said you will not see very strong grandmasters playing 1. e4 e6 2. Qe2 I was wrong.
ponz111 wrote:
Arawn
Actually you are very wrong. I did not look up any games at all. I do not even know how to look up such games as I am computer not literate. I just guessed if these players played such moves it would be in a fast player tournament or a simul.
I have not played correspondence for many years so am not up on using data bases. [if someone would like to message me and explain how to use these, please do] You have to realize I played correspondence chess before chess engines and before data bases.
However even though these last two players [I do not know who is Nepomniactchi is] played these moves in blitz tournaments I will concede I was wrong. I repeat when I said you will not see very strong grandmasters playing 1. e4 e6 2. Qe2 I was wrong.
That's very big of you. And now I will commence to feeling like an arsehole.
For what it's worth, I do agree with you that using the reasoning that "strong gandmasters have played (x)" is highly dubious. There must be, theoretically, good and bad moves in chess. Practical chances or what have you are not relevant to the debate of what constitutes a good vs. bad move. Also not relevant is whether I'd know a good or bad one if it hit me in the face
.
The best for white is probably the tarrasch variation (3. Nd2), but playing 2. d3, kings Indian attack, is also very strong and takes advantage of the e6 pawn blocking in the light squared bishop ( which is the best piece against the kings Indian attack)
ficher said Qe2 best by the test
Mar 19, 2015
0
#232
pellik wrote:
Are the trolls all comming out on Qe2 or something here? Who really thinks 2.Qe2 is the 'best' variation against the French?
...
You really can't judge 2.Qe2 by it's[sic] performance. It's a drawing move and those produce wins occasionally when black needs to win. It's not that strong in it's[sic] own right.
You underestimate 2.Qe2. It's a good winning attempt.
I don't for one instance believe it's the best move from a purely objective point of view. But 2.Qe2 could be the basis of a sound repertoire for a scholastic player. Personally, I'd have a hard time recommending it to most of my students because it breaks principles, and most students have a hard enough time as it is.
That's why I prefer the Advance Variation. It's the most principled option for White. The Exchange Variation with c4 for White is an excellent short-term solution.
Purely objectively, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 is probably best. It's what Khalifman recommended, and it makes perfect strategic sense. It's also extremely complex and allows Black a full range of responses. Practically speaking, it's not a good choice for most players rated under 1600.
So, that takes us back to the Exchange, the Advance, and 2.Qe2 King's Indian Attacks. All three have their advantages. I don't think anyone is claiming that 2.Qe2 is best objectively. But it may be "best" for an individual looking for a slightly unusual line to make into a repertoire.
Mar 19, 2015
0
#233
Hi Sangimangi
Check out two articles I wrote on Playing Against the French Defense :
The first one explains how to play the Tarrasch Variation
http://www.chess.com/blog/Samantha212/white-playing-against-the-french-defense
The second article reviews how Bobby Fischer played against the French Defense. He used the Winawer Advanced Variation most often.
http://www.chess.com/blog/Samantha212/bobby-fischer-crushes-the-fench-defense
I think you'll find both articles and the example of games they review helpful on your quest to successfully playing against the French Defense...Cheers
SmyslovFan wrote:
pellik wrote:
Are the trolls all comming out on Qe2 or something here? Who really thinks 2.Qe2 is the 'best' variation against the French?
...
You really can't judge 2.Qe2 by it's[sic] performance. It's a drawing move and those produce wins occasionally when black needs to win. It's not that strong in it's own right.
You underestimate 2.Qe2. It's a good winning attempt.
I don't for one instance believe it's the best move from a purely objective point of view. But 2.Qe2 could be the basis of a sound repertoire for a scholastic player. Personally, I'd have a hard time recommending it to most of my students because it breaks principles, and most students have a hard enough time as it is.
That's why I prefer the Advance Variation. It's the most principled option for White. The Exchange Variation with c4 for White is an excellent short-term solution.
Purely objectively, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 is probably best. It's what Khalifman recommended, and it makes perfect strategic sense. It's also extremely complex and allows Black a full range of responses. Practically speaking, it's not a good choice for most players rated under 1600.
So, that takes us back to the Exchange, the Advance, and 2.Qe2 King's Indian Attacks. All three have their advantages. I don't think anyone is claiming that 2.Qe2 is best objectively. But it may be "best" for an individual looking for a slightly unusual line to make into a repertoire.
SmyslovFan << Deserves a Medal lol. Finally a real chess player shows up to the thread.
I have been saying for weeks 2.Qe2 is a perfectly respectable move. I have never said it was the greatest of move's. However, it is a move black has to be prepared for and if black is not he can find himself in trouble.
I like the common move order of the KIA
1.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2
However, I have played 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 it add's a new flavor to the game.
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
pellik wrote:
Are the trolls all comming out on Qe2 or something here? Who really thinks 2.Qe2 is the 'best' variation against the French?
...
You really can't judge 2.Qe2 by it's[sic] performance. It's a drawing move and those produce wins occasionally when black needs to win. It's not that strong in it's own right.
You underestimate 2.Qe2. It's a good winning attempt.
I don't for one instance believe it's the best move from a purely objective point of view. But 2.Qe2 could be the basis of a sound repertoire for a scholastic player. Personally, I'd have a hard time recommending it to most of my students because it breaks principles, and most students have a hard enough time as it is.
That's why I prefer the Advance Variation. It's the most principled option for White. The Exchange Variation with c4 for White is an excellent short-term solution.
Purely objectively, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 is probably best. It's what Khalifman recommended, and it makes perfect strategic sense. It's also extremely complex and allows Black a full range of responses. Practically speaking, it's not a good choice for most players rated under 1600.
So, that takes us back to the Exchange, the Advance, and 2.Qe2 King's Indian Attacks. All three have their advantages. I don't think anyone is claiming that 2.Qe2 is best objectively. But it may be "best" for an individual looking for a slightly unusual line to make into a repertoire.
SmyslovFan << Deserves a Medal lol. Finally a real chess player shows up to the thread.
I have been saying for weeks 2.Qe2 is a perfectly respectable move. I have never said it was the greatest of move's. However, it is a move black has to be prepared for and if black is not he can find himself in trouble.
I like the common move order of the KIA
1.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2
However, I have played 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 it add's a new flavor to the game.
HHmmmmmmmmm , what am I ? Chopped liver ? 
Reb wrote:
HHmmmmmmmmm , what am I ? Chopped liver ?
HA HA HA
No No No lol. Your a Real chess player as well. I thought you left the thread in saddness lol after Ponzi had arrived though lol. Bless his heart lol. He sure doesn't like 2.Qe2 maybe in this position would play the move 2.c3 than hope black plays e5 and go for the Ponzani opening.
1.e4 e6 2.c3 e5 3.Nf3
Maybe the Ponzani Opening would be a better opening a tempo up lol.
A little story. I do not play on this site except a few vote chess games and a couple of exhibitions recently.
I play 15 minutes per side games on another site. For a short while I experimented with 1. e4 e6 2. Qe2 and did okay.
But then I started to play against strong players who knew how to play the French Defense as Black
and they were able to show the reasons 2. Qe2 is a bad move. Then I stopped playing that move.
Mar 19, 2015
0
#240
One of the most difficult concepts to get across to amateurs is the difference between a computer's "0.00" and a drawish position. I have seen countless players claim that move "x" leads to a draw in vote chess when they really mean it's equal. Sure, with best play 2.Qe2 leads to equality. But it's a dynamic equality where all three results are still possible.
We aren't talking about correspondence chess with engines, we're talking about practical chess with humans. 2.Qe2 is a good winning try that has been endorsed in practice by some of the best players on the planet, and in writing by world class trainer Mark Dvoretsky.
Poor RubiksaRetard can't even afford a few dollars a month for a membership. I feel sorry for the little guy!
I feel sorry for you, you pay money to this site just to post garbage when you know you can post garbage for free.