Am a long time French player. The biggest downside is dealing with boredom in the exchange variation. Then there are players who exchange on move four instead of move three, when I can't use my normal anti-exchange schemes.
Who else agrees that the french exchange variation leads to such symmetrical drawish positions?
As white I played the exchange french for a win for a while. That most french players don't like it was a fun bonus
I had good results too. 4.Nc3 and 4.c4 both can lead to good positions if the opponent falls asleep thinking they can play anything in the exchange. About half the time I got big kingside attacks.
I definitely had preparation though. I had a collection of model games for ideas, and many lines preped to move 10. I felt like a lot of my opponents just expected the exchange french to play itself.
I will add that amateurs call drawish everything they don't understand.
The exchange french and slav are a bit boring and drawish...
but +1 to this comment. I was making this mistake recently myself and after a few minutes of debating the line I had to admit I only thought so because I didn't understand it.
Of course, I try to make the position as asymmetrical as possible, but still.....very boring.
It doesn't have to be symmetrical, of course. It's black who decides whether to play symmetrically or not. For example:
As a rule of thumb, whenever playing the Exchange French as black, I generally castle the opposite side of white. Keeps the game aggressive rather than quiet.
"After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd, all the pieces and 14 pawns are on the board. If that's not enough for you to get a fighting game, maybe you should take up checkers."
Dumb comment. That's like saying the Slav exchange or the Petrov isn't drawish either because of the amount of pieces still on the board. The problem is the pawn structure, there is a reason these variations have such ridiculously high drawing %. The common retort is that at sub-GM level drawishness doesn't matter, which may be slightly true. But if that's the case, why not just play 1.a4, or any other garbage opening. The fact is that openings matter, at all levels.
Openings don't matter that much at all levels. At lower levels someone blunders and the opening becomes irrelevant. That being said, learning opening ideas is probably fine.
Anyway NM Jim West wrote a nice article on the exchange here: http://jimwestonchess.blogspot.com/2007/01/french-defense-exchange-variation.html
I went through the first game with an engine and it looks as if neither player could've really done much else in the game. There was even an interesting pawn sac White could play but it wouldn't change much. But I only skimmed through the game and maybe there's more to it. Still it's easy to see why it's an interesting choice. You won't be outbooked, or fooled by some random move order trick although White actually has quite a few of his own. If you lose it's because you just got outplayed. And there's little else to say about it. I mean if you're playing things like the sicilian or the Ruy Lopez there are all kinds of ways to just lose and not even know why lol.
"After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd, all the pieces and 14 pawns are on the board. If that's not enough for you to get a fighting game, maybe you should take up checkers."
Dumb comment. That's like saying the Slav exchange or the Petrov isn't drawish either because of the amount of pieces still on the board. The problem is the pawn structure, there is a reason these variations have such ridiculously high drawing %. The common retort is that at sub-GM level drawishness doesn't matter, which may be slightly true. But if that's the case, why not just play 1.a4, or any other garbage opening. The fact is that openings matter, at all levels.
GM Simon Williams called French defense one of the most exciting defenses against 1e4 and he said about French exchange that "with all pieces on the board and one pawn missing there is really no reason to consider the position drawish".
So obviously either he or you have no idea what you are talking about.
Yep, lets ignore the overwhelming statistical evidence that shows openings that force symmetrical pawn structures are in fact drawish. Makes total sense.
"After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd, all the pieces and 14 pawns are on the board. If that's not enough for you to get a fighting game, maybe you should take up checkers."
Dumb comment. That's like saying the Slav exchange or the Petrov isn't drawish either because of the amount of pieces still on the board. The problem is the pawn structure, there is a reason these variations have such ridiculously high drawing %. The common retort is that at sub-GM level drawishness doesn't matter, which may be slightly true. But if that's the case, why not just play 1.a4, or any other garbage opening. The fact is that openings matter, at all levels.
Many people say the slav exchange variation is boring because of the symmetrical position. But it's not that easy. I like to play the following variation:
There are some subtleties in this position and white has a small but annoying advantage. If you are familiar with those type of positions then you will be successful especially at my level of play.
Also Kramnik won a nice game against Aronian at the Olympiad. And Najer also played an interesting game against Rapport in the still ongoing World Cup.
I like to play the Exchange Variation against the french. A stronger player will try to win and castle queenside which is a huge risk because whites king position has basically no weakness. So just because it's a symmetrical position that doesn't mean that it's not possible to win. Of course if both people play carefully it should be a draw but ok I'm not a GM and my opponents neither.
Keres - "Despite the rather simple nature of the position, in the exchange variation neither side can take the liberty of aimlessly developing his pieces, in the expectation that a draw is inevitable."
I like to play the Exchange Variation against the french. A stronger player will try to win and castle queenside which is a huge risk because whites king position has basically no weakness.
Ah, young grashopper. There's always a weakness. :P
As a former french defence player, i scored almost 100% against it with black!
It is not at all drawish, if u study it...
Of course, I try to make the position as asymmetrical as possible, but still.....very boring.
This is why I changed defenses. I went from the french defense which I used to love...to the scandinavian gambit, icelandic gambit, or the bronstein variation of the main line.
Is it drawish? At the GM Level, yes! Otherwise, No!
I am actually in the process of writing a 7-part article on the French, and right smack dab in the middle of doing the one on the King's Indian Attack as we speak. Will probably be out sometime next week.
That said, I released the one on the Exchange Variation back on September 1st. Check it out. It will show you how to win against amateurs in the Exchange French, and if you draw a GM, quite frankly, you should be ecstatic!
http://charlottechesscenter.blogspot.com/2017/09/opening-preparation-french-defense.html
There's even an exercise at the end having you annotate an Exchange French game where Black wins in 34 moves!
Of course, I try to make the position as asymmetrical as possible, but still.....very boring.
This is why I changed defenses. I went from the french defense which I used to love...to the scandinavian gambit, icelandic gambit, or the bronstein variation of the main line.
The are drawish because you have no skill.
Even Kasparov has used the Exchange Variation to win.
Yeah, but you wouldn't recommend it to regular club players right?
Last time I said the exchange is fine we disagreed for many posts on this. Seems you don't mind the exchange so much now (or am I wrong?)
Of course, I try to make the position as asymmetrical as possible, but still.....very boring.
This is why I changed defenses. I went from the french defense which I used to love...to the scandinavian gambit, icelandic gambit, or the bronstein variation of the main line.
You can still castle queenside. Besides, equality with Black on move 3 isn't the worst thing in the world.
Of course, I try to make the position as asymmetrical as possible, but still.....very boring.
This is why I changed defenses. I went from the french defense which I used to love...to the scandinavian gambit, icelandic gambit, or the bronstein variation of the main line.