Go back
french defense

french defense

Only Chess

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by paultopia
Apart from being a gratuitous insult, what is that supposed to mean? I assume that "opening theory" in this case does not mandate sacrificing the d4 pawn with no visible compensation?
why do you ASSUME white allows the same black setup as in other lines?
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/Openings/french_d.html#RTFToC11

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by hypermo2001
why do you ASSUME white allows the same black setup as in other lines?
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/Openings/french_d.html#RTFToC11
Uh, because I don't know this variation. I said that. Instead of resorting to insults, you simply could have answered the question by saying "white's plan is to capture on c5 and give black an IQP." And I would have said "oh! how interesting! Thank you!"

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by paultopia
Uh, because I don't know this variation. I said that. Instead of resorting to insults, you simply could have answered the question by saying "white's plan is to capture on c5 and give black an IQP. And I would have said "oh! how interesting! Thank you!"
i guess I get frustrated with your combination of ignorance and arrogance on the french...sorry if I insulted you

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by hypermo2001
i guess I get frustrated with your combination of ignorance and arrogance on the french...sorry if I insulted you
Well, I'm sorry if I come off arrogant. Please understand that at least 60% of my disparagement of the french is intended to be light-hearted.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by paultopia
Well, I'm sorry if I come off arrogant. Please understand that at least 60% of my disparagement of the french is intended to be light-hearted.
you once mentioned that...but when you give lines/variations to back up your opinions I always forget you're not really serious 🙂

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by paultopia
So? In the advance variation, the d4 pawn ends up being attacked by black's c pawn, c6 knight, and queen: 3 attackers, and being defended by white's c pawn, f6 knight, and queen: 3 defenders. Same with the winnawer after the knight is traded.

In the tarrasch, the d4 pawn can still be attacked by the same three attackers. However, it can only be d ...[text shortened]... in, in traditional Nimzowich style. So what is it? Anyone have Karpov's e-mail address? 🙂
The Queen can defend the d4 pawn from g4 after the e pawn goes to e5. White in the Tarrasch is usually trying to simply develop pieces and maintain the central pawn wedge. The Tarrasch is considered safer and more positional, but not as aggressive as 3 Nc3 which is why I don't play it.

And besides what is this nonsense about "defending a pawn", paultopia? You're ready to throw one away on the 2nd move with your prehistoric King's Gambit!! Who needs 'em anyway, they just get in the way of the big boys!

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by paultopia
So? In the advance variation, the d4 pawn ends up being attacked by black's c pawn, c6 knight, and queen: 3 attackers, and being defended by white's c pawn, f6 knight, and queen: 3 defenders. Same with the winnawer after the knight is traded.

In the tarrasch, the d4 pawn can still be attacked by the same three attackers. However, it can only be d ...[text shortened]... in, in traditional Nimzowich style. So what is it? Anyone have Karpov's e-mail address? 🙂
There is no law saying you HAVE to play the Ng1 to f3, is there? Nb1-d2-f3, Ng1-e2 and there is very little trouble with the d-pawn. The slower build up is justified by the fact that Black obviously got cramp on move 1 when trying to play e7-e5 😉

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Queen can defend the d4 pawn from g4 after the e pawn goes to e5.
This idea I've NEVER seen. Got any lines or game references?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Osse
This idea I've NEVER seen. Got any lines or game references?
To be honest, a brief look through my MCO didn't find anything and I don't play the Tarrasch, so the answer is no. But as the Queen often goes to g4 in the Winawer, I don't really see a theoretical objection to it in the Tarrasch. I was talking off the top of my head, so perhaps there might be a problem that is not immediately apparent. I'll try to find something when I have the time.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by hypermo2001
you once mentioned that...but when you give lines/variations to back up your opinions I always forget you're not really serious 🙂
Well, that's the 40% 🙂

In all seriousness, when I give lines/variations, it's ordinarily in aid of asking questions.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
And besides what is this nonsense about "defending a pawn", paultopia? You're ready to throw one away on the 2nd move with your prehistoric King's Gambit!!
😀 Black can't REALLY hold onto the pawn in the KG. I mean, black CAN, in certain variations (the 3. ... g4 variations, as well as the fischer defense come to mind) but doing so often gives white a massive attack.

I think the secret to the KG is that every tempo black spends messing around with kingside pawns is another tempo that white gets to make a central breakthrough. Current example of many (insert usual disclaimers about not commenting on ongoing games): Game 713916. It's true, black held onto that extra f pawn for quite a while. However, if black by exceedingly precise defense avoids being (a) mated in the next 2 or 3 moves in the center or (b) king-hunted across the board and mated in about 8 or 9 moves in the queenside, he will unquestionably face (c) massive material loss.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Osse
This idea I've NEVER seen. Got any lines or game references?
You asked; I found. There is a game Oim v. Kovaliov, 2001 Parnu/Tallinn which started 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nd2 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 c3 c5 6 Bd3 Nc6 (this is the "main line" of the Tarrasch according to MCO-14) then 7 Qg4. So you never know! The game ended in a draw and the line might not be good but, hey, a 2300 played it!

Vote Up
Vote Down

Excuse me... I am just a non-paying member in this wonderfull website of correspondence chess. Can I ask French defence aficionados why all the passion defending the Black side of this opening?

Kind regards,

Alopinto (aka, outcast non-paying member)

Vote Up
Vote Down

I don't play the French, but it's a solid defense. If people attack it with passion, I guess it makes sense to defend it with passion.

Although getting passionate about any chess opening is a bit odd, whether you're attacking it or defending it.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Alopinto
Excuse me... I am just a non-paying member in this wonderfull website of correspondence chess. Can I ask French defence aficionados why all the passion defending the Black side of this opening?
Pure desperation. 😀


(NOTE: the smiley-face above indicates a joke...)