Is the French Winawer really that bad? A rare sideline gets punished

You are an idiot. I know way more abou the Sicilian Najdorf than yo wil ever know even if you study for 12 hours straight. And Dragon I know a lot more about. I also know way more about French Winawer than you do. So please gtfo

Fezzik wrotessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

In order to raise your level above 2200, you need to develop your own theory of chess. That theory may merely be slightly different opinions of known positions than others have. You may cossssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssnsider the Smyslov variation of the Slav (with Na6) more playable than the books suggest, or instead of considessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssring the Winawer to give white a reasonable edsssssssssssssssssssssssssssge, you may consider that it gives white a killer edge.

Yes! This is something that I've never really seen mentioned yet it has actually been something I have been doing. It's just too damn difficult for even the best of players to have the evaluation of every opening accurately covered, because there are just so many possibilties in a game of chess, and within any opening. After all, it is just chess with a few prerequisite moves that define a given opening.

My personal opinion of the french is that black can often find himself cramped, but I really think his position is just solid enough, and has enough latent counterattacking ability in the center, and possibly on the queenside, to be a quite playable opening. It's not necessarily easy to play; black may have to play a lot of defense, and against a good opponent he needs to time his central play correctly and come up with good maneuvering schemes to maximize the future potential of his pieces. White may be able to keep his center solid enough, but the mere fact that he always has to worry about it doesn't make him fully free, and usually at some point black can either get dynamic activity, or neutralize white's play, perhaps with some simplification, and then proceed with his modest long term play.

The winawer may well give an edge for white, but black has lots of both positional and tactical resources. It seems the two bishops gives an easy attack for white, and yes he can apply a nice amount of pressure sometimes, but black's stubborn position can often defend with some work, and this may be partly because the position is rather closed so although white's bishops point to the k side, they may not have as much flexibility as they like. The, perhaps occasionally scorned, philosophy that the doubled white c pawns are enough, I think deserves more credit. Black's play is very long term, but it's there, and there are plenty of ways to improve his position. Although white can put up a lot of pressure, the closed nature of the position gives black some reason not to suffocate himself in panic, and trust in his long term advantages (depending on the line; I've generally played 7...0-0 on 7 Qg4 [what I've mostly been actually talking about] but 7...Qc7 is more of an aggressive line).

I really don't know the real eval. of a lot of the positions, as many people may not despite their presumptions, but I have played and studied the french a lot and know that in each winawer line black has a lot of ideas that give him a lot to fight for, so even if white is better it's a real fighting game. I like the french because it gives off often a nice closed position, often with many imbalances and dynamic opportunities, yet it is such a solid fundamental structure; at least we know that that e6 d5 complex is almost completely safe; for white he has to be careful his center doesn't collapse, as black's pieces are ready to take over at any time.

Of course, more solid lines like the classical (and one I like a lot, the macutcheon; it's apparently thought to be a super sharp counterattacking opening, yet to me it looks like a winawer on depressants; I think it's nice to have that dark squared bishop eliminated; it seems to cut down on white's dynamic potential a bit) are probably even sounder, but, as I've been starting to learn, space is space, and if the guy with space plays with care, his pieces will be nicer. But black is always solid, and has his fair share of play too.

Recently I've been trying out 1...e5 actually, a move I've quit for literally years, and having space from move 1 as black is turning out not to be so bad! I think I didn't like it before because it seemed like black didn't seem to have much of a plan, aside from copying white's, which would inevitably be crappier. But with more strategic knowledge I've been able to find some plans in black's game, and it's nice now because the move does give black a lot of things that are hard to get with him: simply space and decent pieces! Black is a little more passive obviously, but a good player should be able to find ways to outplay their opponent at least as well as other openings.

Man I LOVE these "experts" criticizing the  Winawar....Like Martial Arts anything is only as good as the player using it..Check out Botvinniks use of it for tactical and positional richness inherent in this  opening. There have been many others in recent years, but Id start w/ the master of this variation and go from there

 lol, thanks...

Anyway, i see so many low rated players telling they refuted a well established opening, thinking they played a very good game while they made big mistakes...

The winawer is a good opening, the Ba5 move in the winawer is bad

 The main line is take on c3 and how is showed below with Ne2 before Kd1 was played.