Whites most testing lines against the Open/Closed Tarrasch French

as the title says. I'm incorporating the open/closed tarrasch french and would like advice from french players on what whites most testing lines are, and why.

Specifically against the closed, open, and chistayakov variations.

Against the closed I'm considering this pawn center variation at the moment.

I have yet to analyze the open or chistayakov in depth.

@ThrillerFan your opinion would be appreciated

@crazedrat1000 Welcome Aboard. I've been using that formation against the Closed Defence to the Tarrasch since round about 1986 (with a 25 year layoff) and it's always worked for me. The very old (1980s) Batsford book on the Tarrasch is still a good one for the ideas, but of course the lines have developed rather since ye olden days.

@crazedrat100 in honesty I'm still experimenting on the vanishingly rare occasions it gets played against me (I think only twice in all that time). 6. Bc4 just somehow feels "right" to me (if Black can play..., e5 without being punished for it he's likely better, I see 6. Bd3 scores well but somehow it "feels wrong" to me). I have a vague plan of O-O and Re1 (inhibiting ..., e5) and then playing Nb3 (in my callow youth I played many an Albin Countergambit and ofttimes hoovered up a Pe5 in similar manner). I just prefer White's pawn structure and have been a lifong Karpov fan even though I can't play in his style for toffee. In frankness since my return to chess activity I've not yet had time to put in the "hard yards" here. As I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys what happens to my rating, I go about trying stuff out for giggles more than maybe I should.

@RalphHayard Fair enough. Agreed on 6. Bc4. But I also don't like the thought of playing the main line too deeply, partly due to the rarity which you pointed out, also my inexperience with it. But also it feels like the theory goes very deep rather than broad in the french, which makes me feel like the french player is just going to know his lines 15 moves deep. So I'm thinking this line... it does cede near-equality but there are alot of odd queen moves / accepting of doubled pawns that black must play to maintain that, otherwise it bounces right back.

Similarly maybe this for the open variation -

Its very a good openning

@crazedrat1000 In the second line you posted at #5 you'll need something against 6..., Bd6 as well as 6..., Qe7+ but I think you'll surprise and de-book many an opponent with those lines The modern book I own on the Tarrasch is "Pedersen" and it covers neither.

Actually, @crazedrat1000 on a bit of a deeper look I don't much fancy White's position after

It's not concrete; merely generalised disquiet about the "shape" of the position (I admit to being quite a lazy thinker); but there's something about the hemmed-in Rh1 and the light-squared Bb5 being at least temporarily cut off from helping with the weakened light squares f3, g2, h3 which would rather worry me.

It is one of those lines that Black really needs to know. Ideas with f6 and g5, ripping open the kingside, can actually lead to a slight advantage for Black. Problem is, the idea will never come intuitively unless you have thoroughly studied the 5.f4 lines, which many amateurs just brush past because they figure it rarely happens. It is one of those lines you will often beat those under 2000, but you start playing experts and masters that actually put in the time and effort in this line, and break up your kingside without fear of uncovering their own king (center is closed) and you will start encountering issues. Keep in mind, all rating references in my posts are over the board, not chess.com bullet, blitz, or rapid. Strictly over the board.

As far as your line against 6...Qe7+, advantage Black. 7.Kf1 is a bust. There is no "forced mate", hence why I say advantage Black and not black wins, but if White wants hope for anything, he must play 7.Be2. Then after 7...Qc7, 8.O-O Nf6 9.Re1 cxd4 10.Nb3 Bb4 11.Bd2 Bxd2 12.Qxd2 O-O and now I would get 13.Nbd4 a lot, but White's only hope at an edge, and it is teeny tiny, is Nfd4.

This is the line I play against the Tarrasch and have played since 2020. Of course, now I only play the French on occasion. The only way I get into this line now is via 1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.Nd2 etc. The exchange and the winawer have an additional way to be reached against me.

Winawer - 1.d4 e6 2.Nc3 Bb4! 3.e4 d5

Exchange - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d3 Nf6 6.d4 d5

I will say, as one that has played the French numerous times as both Black and White, I only advocate 3.e5 and 3.Nc3 for White. 3.Nd2 and 3.exd5 get White nothing more than an equal game.

I played the following game at the Charlotte Open last month where I was on the White side of a French:

Now this is a prime example similar to the f4 line of the closed tarrasch. White's 12th move was highly dubious, but I figured he did not know the response and he didn't and White was in the driver's seat the rest of the game. But after a round 1 loss, I had to play for the outright win. Best is 12.bxc5. Black can get the advantage not by ...Bxb4+, a sucker move often played by noobs, but rather, 12...Bxd4!! 13.Bxa4 Bxe3 is a clear advantage for Black. It was a situational case where I consciously knew I was risking having a clearly worse position and possibly having to play defense the rest of the game. But you appear to think 5.f4 against the closed Tarrasch is actually good. It is weaker than 5.Bd3, but only if Black actually knows why in the same manner that my 12.Bb5 is weaker than 12.bxc5. Of course, White could also play the game of chicken and play 11.Nc3 in my game and see if either side budges or if it repeats in similar fashion to the Zaitsev draw (Re8 Ng5 Rf8 Nf3 Re8 Ng5 Rf8 Nf3).

I have question.

Isn’t Black supposed to play a6?

I feel like their use to be a variation in the Open Tarrasch where Black key move was a6.

I think I was told about it 15 years ago.

Has my Cheese totally fell off its Cracker or is their an a6 move in that position somewhere?

After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 exd5 5.Ngf3 Nc6 6.Bb5 Qe7+ 7.Qe2 (7.Be2 is better) Qxe2+ 8.Kxe2 a6!, White is forced to relinquish the Bishop pair as 9.Bd3 c4 leads to trouble for White, and so 9.Bxc6+ is forced, handing Black the Bishop pair.

I like the Nc3 french, but I'm playing a system based on 1. d4 d5 2. Nd2, which combines the Breyer slav + Tarrasch french + Colle Zukertort. Which... seems to be virtually unknown, however objectively no different than the Jobava but it's surprisingly one of the sharpest / most tactical d4 repertoires I've seen. But this tarrasch french will be the most theoretical line in the repertoire. So far I'm liking the lines here in the Tarrasch quite alot, though. I think that Chistayakov line is going to crush and the f4 line... I'm happy with that too. 
Thanks for the tip on the open tarrasch - I haven't made up my mind there yet but will take a careful look at your suggestion.

Ian my boy! you have changed your screen name and taken your personal identifyers off your account. That was probably a good idea. A bit surprised it took you so long to figure out, though.

You have a mild case of psychopathy, FYI. As someone who studied psychology at university for years I can tell you that. I'm not trying to offend you or attack you, I'm actually just telling you.

It's a very classic rationalization of psychopaths which claims the very fact they can get away with acting in an antisocial or sadistic manner justifies their doing so.

But not a brilliant psychopath, a dunce one and that's something you can't change unfortunately. 

@RalphHayward Agh, I posted the wrong line earlier. This is what I meant -

Although I'm not really settled on Kf1 here, it was just an idea being kicked around, but engine actually likes it - +0.20. 
But honestly I'm not liking any of these lines for white in the open so far.

I guess this isn't so bad though, you get Rd1 in 1 move. The whole line still feels mundane though -

@crazedrat1000 Now that line looks a sight nicer than the "wrong" one previously posted. In honesty, it would still give me collywobbles to be losing so many tempi and having an "empty fianchetto" with the Queens still on, but perhaps that's just me.

Frankly, if the "main-line Open" structures are looking mundane to you (let's face it, one probably needs to be a Petrosian-Karpov-Salov type who excels at; and revels in; accreting small advantages whilst smothering the opponent's piece play to really prosper in them) perhaps this isn't the line for you. I got enthused about it from looking at the Karpov-Korchnoi matches a very long time ago.

Thinking about your finding this sort of position mundane and not wanting to be learning long, deep Chistayakov stuff, I remembered that; back in 1980 in his book, "Play Better Chess" Leonard Barden punted the following as a viable non-theoretical sideline for White...

"If you want to get out of the books quickly, an interesting idea is Cafferty's recommendation

when White has a favourable form of what usually occurs from the Colle Systrem in the queen's pawn opening (1. d4, d5; 2. Nf3, Nf6; 3. c3, e6; 4. Nbd2 followed soon by dxc5 and e4).".

I've not looked to see if this is now busted somehow, and I've never tried it myself: White's position is of a type which I don't play especially well. I thought of it purely because it would avoid the position types you're finding to be mundane and entirely cuts out learning something against the Chistayakov. Plus that you mentioned that you were playing Colle-Zukertort type positions in post #13 which suggested to me you might have a liking/affinity for them.. All mentioned purely 'for what it's worth'.

I think I'm happy with the Chistayakov / Closed and I can just tolerate this somewhat dissatisfying open variation, which isn't really that common. I guess people are afraid of an IQP? But it looks fine for black. Though it does at least give white something to play for.

Probably I'll just stick with the Rd1 line up there.

But this d4 > Nd2 system I mentioned is so wild that 1 little grindy line couldn't make me abandon it, I'm quite pumped about it. Every other line leads to something sharp For example, black is almost lost when he pushes d4 here

Then there's this line where white sacs a whole knight off the bat, and remains dead equal objectively... it's like a new fried liver.

What is the point behind 1.d4 d5 2.Nd2? There really isn't one. It isn't like e4 is a threat at getting a big center. Black will just trade on e4.

Now in The Colle - Move by Move, Lakdawala introduces a line he calls "An Ostrich in the Sand" where he demonstrates 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nd2. This is different. Here White does threaten to get the big center with 3.e4, and the difference between this and 2.Nc3 is if 2.Nc3 and Black does play 2...d5, you are stuck in the territory of the Jobava, Veresov, or possibly the Barry Attack. By playing 2.Nd2, if 2...d5, White can go back into the Colle, most likely the Koltanowsky (c3) as the early commitment of the knight could lead to move order issues in the Zukertort.

Of course, if Black brings the Bishop out to f5 or g4, white will need to act fast and play something like c4, as is the case after the normal 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5, where White's only good move is 4.c4, when 4...c6 is the Slow Slav.

You know I have never heard of anyone playing that line.

However, A part of me doesn’t like the move e4.

In the above position, I don’t like e4.

Is c4 a possible move?