Originally posted by doodinthemood
It creates the most boringly dull games of chess I've ever played.
My opening repertoire looks like this:
As black, Latvian, Budapest, Halibut, From, accepts KG with 3.d6
As white, Tennison, Lisitsin, Santasiere, Ponziani, and... French advance ¬_¬
It's the one line that guarantees a positional struggle instead of any drawn out combinations and sa ...[text shortened]... ts than win a game through having a decent outpost that eventually came good after 50 moves.
Yes, the French creates "dull" positional struggles but not always. 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 has a lot of life to it. There are other variations too. Eventually, you will run into 3. Nxe5 in the Latvian, as we all have, and end up saying I'm in a defensive position with equality but no real chances. White develops sensibly and opens up the game with f3, while black has a pawn on d6, bishop on e7, and no real chance for initiative. 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 ( No Budapest) also 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. d5 only equal but dull as heck once all the Ng4 or Bxf2 tactics are gone. Tennison 1. Nf3 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Ng5 e5 4. Nxe4 f5 5. Ng3 Bc5 and white can't even play Bc4 because of Bxf2+.
Lisitsin (I'm playing a game with it now. You don't get half as much fun with it as you would over the board without books.) I've been where you are. Those openings are stepping stones. You learn a lot about tactics and play with the initiative. Eventually, though you play stronger players who know the nuances and get pounded. That's the real problem with those openings. They are good for learning, but you can't rely on them forever. Also, you can't make a game really tactical without help from the opponent. I was just trying to give some good solid reasons why the French may work for some players. A lot prefer the Sicilian or 1. e4 e5.