by Fromper on Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:58 pm
So I still haven't decided what line I want to play as white against the French Defense. I know that I really like the king side attack that white gets in stereotypical French middle game positions, with the pawns locked up in the center and the king's bishop aimed at h7, but I just don't know what line to use to most reliably get to those types of middle games.

For instance, I know I don't want to play the Exchange variation. The Advance variation gives black counterplay by attacking d4 immediately, which isn't how I want the game to go. I like playing white against the classical variation after 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nd7, but that allows the Winawer if black chooses 3. ... Bb4 instead. It's not that I'm scared of the Winawer, but it's not what I'm hoping for when I see the French. I haven't really looked at the Tarrasch (3. Nd2), so I don't know if that would lead to the types of positions I like.

On a whim, I tried the odd, yet seemingly playable, 3. Bd3 (after the normal 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5) in a tournament game this past weekend, and I got exactly the middle game position I wanted out of it. We continued 3. ... Nf6 4. e5 Nd7 5. f4 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Nf3 Qb6 8. Bc2 (from memory, so this might not be exactly right).

The point being that black eventually castled king side, and I ended up playing a typical Greek Gift sacrifice (Bxh7+). The attack didn't work because I overlooked a brilliant defensive move where black gave the material back, so we ended up with a draw, but it was exactly the type of exciting attack that I like playing as white in the French. If he hadn't castled, I still would have proceeded with the king side attack, probably by castling and pushing my f pawn.

So now the big question: After 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5, what's wrong with 3. Bd3? This move seems perfectly reasonable to me, yet it isn't even mentioned as a minor sideline in MCO. We even went to the book vendor at the tournament and searched around for French Defense books, trying to find one that mentioned this move, and I couldn't find it mentioned anywhere. Apparently, masters and grandmasters don't play it. Why not?

Personally, I like that it got my opponent out of his preparation, yet led to exactly the type of French position that we're both used to seeing, just without black getting any immediate pressure.

The only risk I can see is if black goes for the Rubenstein variation with 3. ... dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. Bg5 Be7, white's going to have to either move that king's bishop a third time or else play 6. Bxf6 Bxf6, giving up the bishop pair.

--Fromper
--------------------------
by ColonelCrockett on Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:19 pm
I have struggled with this move as well. 3.Bd3 is playable but it invites a trade of Bishops most of the time (since often you have to Ne2 to develop the King's Bishop. This can be distasteful for the player who follows the axiom that the "King's Bishop is the attacking Bishop". But I see no problem with it. The same problems for white occur in the Caro-Kann after 3.Bd3. It's an interesting alternative.

As for the French my general practice has me preferring 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 with varied success usually due to a miscalculation after Black's 'wait-and-see" approach to the game (I'm often too aggressive as White in this opening line). But with a slow positional buildup I'm convinced White has a slight advantage. However, I recall Korchnoi perferring Black in this line so take my advice with a grain of salt. The jury isn't out even with Rybka analysis arming Black with key ideas involving a timely a6.

As for the original question involving 3.Be3 I see no problem if you like endgames ... but for a sharp middlegame attacking player it's going to feel bland and uninteresting. It's worth pulling someone out of theory but as a sharp weapon it doesn't hold up to other systems. I'll start playing it more often as white ... but I was working on a destructive system involving 1. a3.
--------------------------
by Fromper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:36 am
I like the line you mention (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4) as white, since it leads to the type of king side attacks that I like. The two problems with it are that it allows the Winawer (3. ... Bb4) and white can't respond to c5 with c3. I just don't like giving black that counterplay. 3. Bd3 seems to avoid the sharpest of those lines early on, while transposing into similar middle game positions where white gets a nice king side attack, if black continues with 3. ... Nf6, as my opponent did on Saturday.

I'm confused about your comment that white has to play Ne2. This does seem like a reasonable way to transpose to the Tarrasch variation (which I should probably look at as another possibility to start playing), but I'm not sure why you think it would be that common in this line.

Also, interesting typo in your last paragraph, when you typed 3. Be3 instead of 3. Bd3. I actually have been playing the Alapin Gambit (3. Be3) for a while, but it doesn't work well when the gambit is accepted by players who know how to sidestep the obvious king side attack. I actually had more luck with it when it was declined, which transposed to more normal French positions. That's why I decided to stop playing it, but I hadn't decided what to start playing instead before my opponent Saturday played the French against me, so I pulled out 3. Bd3 on a whim.

--Fromper
--------------------------
by ColonelCrockett on Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:16 am
Just a few notes ... the Winawer variation (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4) is obviously sharp ... but it in no way deprives White of advantage. In fact there are those who consider White to have a big edge after Black's Bb4 and would prefer the position as White. I am among this number (for one ... I've played it more often with White than 90% of French players have played it as Black ... it's more of a side weapon in the Black repertoire than a main line). In OTB chess the sharpness of the line is half the point. You want a sharp game to keep you on alert and keep your opponent guessing.

As for my comment about Ne2 ... let me break it down. The Bishop on d3 usually ends up on f3 (after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Bd3 dxe4 4.Bxe4 Nf6 5.Bf3) the most common line of play. This means he has moved three times. Then after the 'obvious' development move Ne2 Black usually plays Bg4 and the White Bishop has no escape from being traded. In my opinion this effectively loses a tempo ... it isn't a happy situation to have the advantage of White only to be stuck playing Black. It's not a losing disadvantage necessarily but it requires even more creative thinking than 3.Bd3. It is common in this line because the only other development square for the knight is h3 and that's just unfriendly unless you intend on playing h4 first in semi-King's Indian Defense style (on the opposite side of the board ... namely a5 followed by Na6 in the KID)