Scuse me OP, the French Defence, properly played, is the most downright aggressive of all defences.
The personality of a French defence player
Sort:
2Q1C wrote:
I like it because it eliminates a lot of the popular lines that patzers like myself learn. I think it is a very aggressive opening.
...
<<raw talent in it's purest form>>
But be a good chap and get rid of the apostrophe. It's incorrect.
alex-rodriguez wrote:
"What kind of sick satisfaction do these people get from beating someone with such a bore-inducing play style?"
The point of every chess game is to win it. It's doesn't matter how that is achieved. If someone beat me I would not accuse my opponent of being boring.
The French Defense is an interesting opening. I haven't studied it because as Black I always use the Sicilian Defense, preferably the Najdorf Variation, and when I have the White pieces I always use the King's Indian Attack. These games are not boring because I'm often wiped off the board. Perhaps I should try the French Defense. It might be the perfect opening for me.
When I look upon a person like yourself, I see character, and strong principles. I see humanity, and goodness. That's why I don't think the French defence would suit your personality. And for those reasons I'm out.
Feb 5, 2017
0
#47
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
On my way up I've encountered many French defence players.
Most of the time, I lose to these players because I'm ill-prepared. The primary reason for my lack of preparation is that I have certain expectations for my fellow chess players. Expectations for honesty, and good gamesmanship.
I believe in a world where chess players play genuine, beautiful, and creative chess. I believe in a world where chess players don't settle on using cheap tricks to fool their opponent. Obviously, French defence players fit in the latter.
The question I ask is, how miserable does one have to be to employ the French defence? What kind of sick satisfaction do these people get from beating someone with such a bore-inducing play style?
Thank you,
Vlad
French players prefer a more solid defensive style opening. If you think the French is boring than may I ask what is less boring? Having all your pieces traded off in the opening game just to stop counter play? Because that is what usually happens in the usual king pawn opening schemes. If you ask me i would rather play the French than e5 and have to worry about the bishop on c4. What to do, trade it off? But then all you are doing is trading pieces and pretty soon it's going to be a draw. Not that trading off the bishop is the only viable option, it's just that most people I play against attempt to stop all my tactics when I play the Italian by either playing the anti fried liver or trading off that pesky bishop. The games can still be fun when they go anti-fried liver, but when they trade off that bishop it just gets annoying long... So I would have to say that this would be a lot more boring than going up against the french. it's only boring to you because you do not fully understand it. Watch a few youtube videos and get yourself up to speed with the French, rather than just try and bash it in a poor trolling attempt to which you have been counter Trolled in 
Feb 5, 2017
0
#48
2Q1C wrote:
Interesting to see even titled players think @JMurakami is not a gentleman and uses dishonourable tactics to win.
"Nice flagger"
He then tries to explain his unsportsmanlike conduct :
"Hmmm, I wasn't even looking at the clock, and you could have taken my last pawn and get a K v K draw. You tried to win, which is okay, lost on time and then complain, which is not okay."
Yes, very good sir, sure. You weren't looking at the clock. OK. I believe you - thousands wouldn't.
Then the titled player shuts down this phony.
"Actually you promoted the pawn to stop my pre-move and flag.."
You are one despicable individual! You should show more respect to titled players who are clearly better than you. There is no honour in flagging. You honestly expect any chess player with integrity to believe that you don't pay attention to the clock in severe time constraints? Pull the other one please!
Dude, EVERYBODY DOES THIS!! The person that complained does it. if he says he doesn't then he is probably lying. In speed chess time is King. If you know what your opponent will most likely do next and there is only a little bit of time on his clock everybody knows that you try and stop the premove by making a dumb move, haven't you watched chessbrahs? I mean why would you try and think to win when you know you don't have to? A little saying I learned in the Military, "Work smarter not harder." Unless they change the rules, that stuff, everybody does it, and seeing how you are calling him out, on something everyone does, shows, that you, have no idea. Not really trying to diss you it's just that you are using this as "proof" that this guy is illegitimate but in reality this is a tactic that is employed by all who play blitz or bullet. I'd bet Hikaru Nakamura would admit to doing this. Actually I remember now that he did publicly in a video that he did with IM Daniel Rensch, with no shame.
If I miss spelled words it's because it was a typo or that I did not actually know how to spell that specific word. I admit to being a bad speller at times, but that doesn't mean I do not have a good grasp on the English Language dork.
Feb 5, 2017
0
#49
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
On my way up I've encountered many French defence players.
Most of the time, I lose to these players because I'm ill-prepared. The primary reason for my lack of preparation is that I have certain expectations for my fellow chess players. Expectations for honesty, and good gamesmanship.
I believe in a world where chess players play genuine, beautiful, and creative chess. I believe in a world where chess players don't settle on using cheap tricks to fool their opponent. Obviously, French defence players fit in the latter.
The question I ask is, how miserable does one have to be to employ the French defence? What kind of sick satisfaction do these people get from beating someone with such a bore-inducing play style?
Thank you,
Vlad
Yo Vlad,
Often I have the same problem. Nevertheless, if you keep on the pressure even the French defence will go down eventually. Maybe my latest blog can inspire you, see: https://www.chess.com/blog/BluemanIsBack/k
2Q1C wrote:
chesster3145 wrote:
@2Q1C's blitz rating: ~1050
@2Q1C's daily rating: ~1375
@shcherbak's blitz rating: ~1330
@shcherbak's daily rating: ~1750
Let's also not forget that 2Q1C is delusional and believes he/she is a "Future World Champion".
In less than 3 months playing and I am already playing incredible chess reminiscent of Morphy.
Chester: Member since April 2015. NEARLY 2 YEARS! Yet still you struggle to get your tactics above 1300. You make me sick! Try studying like I am. Nobody is going to hand you the GM title on a plate. You have to show some hunger and work for it!
If you did any research you would know that I don't do tactics on here, and that my blitz rating has never dipped below about 1125, and that's because I don't take it seriously and don't play blitz well.
I'm rated 1550 in daily chess, never having been under 1400.
I'm rated 1500 in serious slow chess playing exclusively 90/30.
My Chesstempo rating floats around 1700.
My chess.emrald.net rating is in the 1400s.
I know I will never be a GM. You won't ever be one either.
Get off your high horse, patzer.
Stephenson2 wrote:
People tend to forget White chooses to play the "French" if White did not want to play the French he would not open with 1.e4
Do you want cheese with youre Whine?
Ohhhh you're making a joke, how cute.
The French Defence is not passive. It is and it has to be extremely aggressive. In effect, black is committed to playing many lines a piece down for a while. In compensation, there's lots of potential for the aggressive development of the remaining pieces. Look at the traditional lines of the Advance Variation, where black has a N on f5 and one on c6, and Qb6, and plays either f6 or f5 to suit.
The french defense is very aggressive because black is trying to fight for control of the centre
Feb 5, 2017
0
#55
I find most lines of the French to be very annoying to play with black, and also very annoying to play with white. If I'm black I'm usually freaking out about my king safety, and if I'm white I'm usually freaking out about black's piece activity. This is in lines such as the Tarrasch, Winawer PP, Advance, etc.
JMurakami wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Scuse me OP, the French Defence, properly played, is the most downright aggressive of all defences.
Out of curiosity I just checked out how well White scores against the main defenses to 1.e4 in my 8.5 million game database (leaving out those with less than 100k games):
1...c5 51.0% (1.743.883 games)
1...g6 51.8% (118.302 games)
1...Nf6 52.6% (101.615 games)
1...c6 53.6% (311.636 games)
1...e6 53.9% (576.771 games)
1...d5 54.3% (158.209 games)
1...d6 54.7% (187.058 games)
1...e5 56.2% (1.112.513 games)
The results give the idea that the higher the unbalance, the higher the chances for Black to score. The French doesn't create that much unbalance, which explains the success numbers.
But, it isn't a defense based on cheap tricks, as OP claimed. As I wrote in post #30, the player has to be tenacious and well prepared to handle it properly, and be ready to switch from tenacious defensive play into extremely aggressive play within a second... and that's not for everyone.>>>
I'd expect a defence that white scores relatively well against to be more aggressive, given of course that it's sound. Then again, it may be necessary to look for any tendency for slightly unsound variations to be fashionable for a while, giving rise to a distortion of the implications of the figures.
I'd be interested in looking at a similar set of statistics relating to 1. d4, 1.c4 and 1.Nf3, though.
Feb 5, 2017
0
#57
This whole troll topic was motivated because somebody played 1...e6 and 2...Qh4 against Vlad and won.
Future GM....yah
Future GM....yah
I was experimenting with colours and how they go together. But my wife's the artist in our house. At least, she thinks she is.
I'm not totally sure I agree with your implications of passive and aggressive, since games need to be viewed as a whole.
urk wrote:
This whole troll topic was motivated because somebody played 1...e6 and 2...Qh4 against Vlad and won.
Future GM....yah
Future GM....yah
Urk, I thought we were friends. I thought I had your support. I guess I was wrong.
Botvinnik and Petrosian are both notable for being highly positional players. Sure, both, especially Botvinnik, could play tactically when required but that isn't the point.
I haven't actually thought much about passivity and aggression in chess. It's just that your discussion of their relationship didn't ring true to me. I know you like a good argument so perhaps we can have one, although I don't feel much like thinking about it at the moment.
I think, though, that what we have to explore are the players' intentions and how their choice of variations fits in with how games develop. I could force myself to think about it by exploring how "unbalancing techniques" are brought into play by either side and so forth, so maybe we could have a discussion, if you like.
So far, on few occasions