French Nightmare

Originally posted by !~TONY~!
It's hard to read exigentskys posts anymore to be quite honest. You can only hear about "Well the best GM's play this, and I analyzed this for hours with an engine, and I checked this with chessbase, and this and this...." Chessbase statistics mean very little if you don't check them out right, and engine analysis is really only good in sharp positions. I w ...[text shortened]... 't matter, because neither side will play perfect. THat's chess, that's what's great.

I am a decent chess player, but I am not a grandmaster. Thus, I think it is only natural to take advantage of the wisdom of those who are evidently much stronger than I am. Having a databses pruned to contain hundreds of thousands of games by 2500+ players tells much about the objective situation of a given variation. Adding to that several strong engines with differint strengths (which must be considered during analysis) on top hardware, like the 3100+ ELO Rybka and the dynamic attacker HIARCS, I can get an even better understanding of the variations played. I can experiment with hundreds of different lines to see how they compare to mainlines and to undertand why certain moves were or were not played. Adding to this hundreds of thousands of engine games played at nomral time controls, like from the Rybka opening book (where authors note recommended lines) I often find interesting novelties and inevitably deepen my understanding of certain variations. Sometimes, I find that a line that seems good based on Chessbase statistics has a response in the engine book that changes the evaluation but has been played few times in human games or is just becoming popular. Of course, I also analyze based on my own experience and knowledge and with additional help from lucid explanations in opening books by good authors, like Watson. Thus, the process is much more involved than you realize. I always take statistics with a grain of salt and always ensure that I have an adequate sample size and have adjusted for ELO. Statistics are only initial guides for me.

I have to go now. I will post the rest of my response soon.

Originally posted by !~TONY~!
It's hard to read exigentskys posts anymore to be quite honest. You can only hear about "Well the best GM's play this, and I analyzed this for hours with an engine, and I checked this with chessbase, and this and this...." Chessbase statistics mean very little if you don't check them out right, and engine analysis is really only good in sharp positions. I w 't matter, because neither side will play perfect. THat's chess, that's what's great.

White's initiative is compensated by Black's extra knowledge and so, like Kasparov, I think chess is ultimately a draw with best play. To me, a good opening is reliable, offers black good winning chances (due to imbalances) and never puts him in a position where a draw is out of reach with best play. Not many openings meet this definition completely. The Maroczy bind for example, is probably a draw for Black with best play, but he has too little counterplay and thus no real winning chances barring major errors. The Alekkhine offers Black many winning chances if the White player deviates just a little from the best line. However, with best play, White gets a stable edge and is in no real danger. The Scandinavian doesn't pass my standards for the same reason. You're right that this standard is probably unnecessary for my opposition, but if I don't do this, I can't have full confidence and peace of mind when playing an opening and I may be limiting my progress. I want an opening that I would be comfortable playing against God himself. Maybe with this in mind, you see why I must do so much analysis before adopting an opening.

After I have a few openings I consider good, then I will look more closely at what best suits my style. At the moment, I have a balanced style and do not lean much in either direction. I play the moves that give me the most initiative (sometimes in latent form) and piece activity without harming my position in the long run. In essence, I play the moves I think are best without concern to whether they are heavily tactical or positional. I try to play the board as much as possible.

Of course, my approach to openings and my standards immediately leaves out the vast majority of sidelines. Thus, it should come as no surprise that I'm prepared to deal with a lot of theory. Of course, I won't know it all overnight and will not make a huge effort to learn it all, but over a few months or maybe years, I should have a good grasp.

BTW: Currently the French (barely due to the Burn) and the Najdorf meet my standard for a good opening. Still, I want to try other Sicilians, e5 and even the Caro-Kann. (although I expect it would fail in the good winning chances department)

Originally posted by Zander 88
What is black's best response after...

1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 ?

Which variation got the best win percentage/chances for Black? Which variation is objectively best for Black?

I have played the French for about two years and my favourite response is Bb4, the Winawer. I think it leads to interesting positions although it is, ultimately, as another poster pointed out, a matter of taste.

Originally posted by Zander 88
What is black's best response after...

1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 ?

Which variation got the best win percentage/chances for Black? Which variation is objectively best for Black?

It seems to me that Nf6 is the best response. You might not care about this too much, but the players using Nf6 have a higher average ELO (think Morozevich) and it scores slightly better overall (~2😵. However, the overall score is much less important than specific variations and it is mainly because of the Qg4 line of the Winnawer that I would not play it. Qc7 leads to an unbalanced game with a significant White advantage with best play (after about 10 moves). 0-0, like Watson recommends leads to a position with a slight White advantage and a direct kingside attack. Black has few winning chances if White does not overreach. This is probably why Jeroen Noomen, Rybka's opening book author has set Rybka to only play Nf6 even though he usually prefers more tactical variations.

Still, the Winnawer is much more dangerous than Nf6. By that I mean that a seemingly trivial error from White's part can be punished quite severely while with Nf6 it is often only equality or a slight edge. Thus, I expect an expert Winnawer player could have better results against less knowledgeable competition than an equally well-versed Nf6 player. But if their opponents have the same knowledge, I think the results would be reversed.

Post got cut off. Stupird RHP cuts anything after a less than sign. 🙁 What I was getting at is that at lower levels Bb4 is better practically.

Originally posted by exigentsky
It seems to me that Nf6 is the best response. You might not care about this too much, but the players using Nf6 have a higher average ELO (think Morozevich) and it scores slightly better overall (~2😵. However, the overall score is much less important than specific variations and it is mainly because of the Qg4 line of the Winnawer that I would not play i ...[text shortened]... ly play Nf6 even though he usually prefers more tactical variations. Still, if you play people

That's kind of what I expected. Oh well, I don't worry about computer analysis much anymore.

"If (Black) is going for victory, he is practically forced to allow his opponent to get some kind of well-known positional advantage."
-- Mikhail Tal

stupid smileys. 😞

Originally posted by exigentsky
White's initiative is compensated by Black's extra knowledge and so, like Kasparov, I think chess is ultimately a draw with best play. To me, a good opening is reliable, offers black good winning chances (due to imbalances) and never puts him in a position where a draw is out of reach with best play. Not many openings meet this definition completely. The ...[text shortened]... the Caro-Kann. (although I expect it would fail in the good winning chances department)

I hear the Burn is pretty lame. I assume then, that if you're so obsessed with perfection, that you play the Semi-Slav? If not, you're not playing the best opening! Oh God! Your winning chances just went down .002%!

Originally posted by cmsMaster
I hear the Burn is pretty lame. I assume then, that if you're so obsessed with perfection, that you play the Semi-Slav? If not, you're not playing the best opening! Oh God! Your winning chances just went down .002%!

You don't need to attack someone for simply asking what people think offers better winning chances. Last time i checked, you use DB's and books pretty often trying to find any edge you can get.

exigentsky- I prefer 3. dxe4. after his knight takes back black has plenty of options and an open game. It's not mainline but it's playable. It's called the Rubinstein variation.

edit: heres one variation cm9000 has in its opening book
3. .. dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Nf3 Ngf6 6. Nxf6+ Nxf6 7. Bd3 c5 8. dxc5 Bxc5

edit #2: just realized that this and the game you posted was pretty much the same just with a different move order, but it differes early on and can lead to other variations

Originally posted by exigentsky
It seems to me that Nf6 is the best response. You might not care about this too much, but the players using Nf6 have a higher average ELO (think Morozevich) and it scores slightly better overall (~2😵. However, the overall score is much less important than specific variations and it is mainly because of the Qg4 line of the Winnawer that I would not play i ...[text shortened]... player. But if their opponents have the same knowledge, I think the results would be reversed.

I won't comment on my own experience of Nf6 since I tried it a few times and didn't enjoy the positions. Black has absolutely nothing to fear from the Qg4 line, it's called the poisoned pawn variation for a reason. I used to play Alekhine's so I have no issue with counter attacking from a cramped position.

As for books on the French I would recommend any collection of Wolfgang Uhlmann's games. I think Uhlmann understood how to play the French better than any other player including Botvinnik, Korchnoi and Short.

What did Uhlmann play?

3 ... Bb4 Winawer variation every time!!

Originally posted by cmsMaster
I hear the Burn is pretty lame. I assume then, that if you're so obsessed with perfection, that you play the Semi-Slav? If not, you're not playing the best opening! Oh God! Your winning chances just went down .002%!

The Semi-Slav is a response to d4 not e4. However, I am considering trying the Slav/Semi-Slav. 🙂 I currently play the Nimzo/Bogo/Queen's Indian. Also, the Burn has been played by some very creative players and it can be quite interesting. This is subjective.

In any case, I wish you would stop misrepresenting my reasoning. I thought I explained it quite well for you. It's not about the statistics. They are only rough guides before I know what's going on.

Thanks for the feedback demonseed and hammster21! Demonseed, I'm surprised you have no problems with facing Qg4. It is the move that has caused even a few GMs to stop playing the Winnawer. How do you continue after Qg4?

Originally posted by exigentsky
The Semi-Slav is a response to d4 not e4. However, I am considering trying the Slav/Semi-Slav. 🙂 I currently play the Nimzo/Bogo/Queen's Indian. Also, the Burn has been played by some very creative players and it can be quite interesting. This is subjective.

In any case, I wish you would stop misrepresenting my reasoning. I thought I explained it quit ...[text shortened]... that has caused even a few GMs to stop playing the Winnawer. How do you continue after Qg4?

God, I hate the Bogo. Feels like Black has no winning chances. I'll stick to queen's indian.

Originally posted by exigentsky
White's initiative is compensated by Black's extra knowledge and so, like Kasparov, I think chess is ultimately a draw with best play. To me, a good opening is reliable, offers black good winning chances (due to imbalances) and never puts him in a position where a draw is out of reach with best play. Not many openings meet this definition completely. The ...[text shortened]... the Caro-Kann. (although I expect it would fail in the good winning chances department)

I hate to break it to you, but attaining ACTUAL and good winning chances with black entails some risk. That's bottom line. You will be slightly worse with black if you want winning chances, or you will at least have to accept an unclear position with bad drawing chances. I hate to break it to you, but in CC and OTB play, you won't win alot of games as black in the French Burn/Rubenstein. Think about it: Burn and Rubinstein were incredibly stodgy and booring players. Instead of worrying about what the GM's are doing (not to mention you can find a top GM that plays about any opening you want), you should worry about what you want to do, and what you like. It sickens me to read these posts where you are analyzing these French Burn positions that are in the endgame. You would be much better off studying something else. Until you are a GM, preparing all this opening crap and worrying about it is absolutely ridiculous. As long as you pick something and stick with it, and really delve into it, it doesn't matter what you play. You probably think I'm terrible for playing the Dragon all the time. My record OTB with the Dragon is almost 70%. I don't care what the GM's think. I study it hard, play it harder, and score amazingly. And I will probably be playing it my whole chess career, because I love the positions. Maybe you just haven't found something you love yet. I feel bad that you are wasting all this time. Take my slight rudeness as a wanting to help you type attitude. You don't need to back up everything you do and say with a GM's opinion. Find your own. 😀

Originally posted by Zander 88
God, I hate the Bogo. Feels like Black has no winning chances. I'll stick to queen's indian.

I tend to agree and that's why I play the a5 variation. However, I have done very little analysis of the Queen's Pawn openings. I'm only playing the Bogo because it was recommended in Lev Alburt's book as an easy way to play if you know the Nimzo. I'm probably going to the Queen's Indian myself.

Originally posted by !~TONY~!
I hate to break it to you, but attaining ACTUAL and good winning chances with black entails some risk. That's bottom line. You will be slightly worse with black if you want winning chances, or you will at least have to accept an unclear position with bad drawing chances. I hate to break it to you, but in CC and OTB play, you won't win alot of games as black ...[text shortened]... don't need to back up everything you do and say with a GM's opinion. Find your own. 😀

Yes, risk in the sense that if Black goes wrong he can easily be lost. But, it's not always risk in the sense that with best play Black is going to be at a significant disadvantage. Just look at the Najdorf! Black is not risking so much objectively because even with best play it seems, so far, that White has no tangible advantage. At the very least I haven't found any clear way to a lasting White advantage. Even the English attack seems equal and Black can always play 9. ...h5 to avoid the kingside attack. This is the kind of opening I want. Sound, reliable, full of energy and with good winning chances.

You're right that the French Burn variation is not generally as exciting as a Najdorf or Dragon Sicilian, but it also isn't as boring as you depict it and it has evolved greatly since Burn was playing it. It's full of rich ideas, such as the c5 pawn break, b6 fianchetto and even the a5 battery ram if White castles queenside. It's interesting in it's own way and it deserves some attention. Maybe it's just me, but after really studying an opening, I almost always realize that there is more to it than I thought and that it is really interesting. I sometimes even get a better understanding of chess in general, as I have with the French. Still, the Burn doesn't really give me the positions I crave for Black and other responses lead to positions that while more in tune in character, suffer from many other issues.

And no, I don't think you're terrible for playing the Dragon. It's not really so bad. Although I don't trust it completely due to the Qd2 0-0-0 line where Black has to play d5 (other moves like Nxd4 are even worse) it is not to be shrugged off. If White doesn't follow the best lines, it's very easy for Black to get an edge. Even with best play, White edge cannot be considered winning.

For the last time, I don't just look at GM opinion and decide it will be my opinion. But I do consider GM opinion and many more sources, as anyone should. My opinion unsupported by analysis and practice is irrelevant. I suppose in school you had no sources (studies, experts etc.) for your research papers, you just used your opinion.

BTW: I realize I'm being too hard on the Accelerated Dragon. Black can get a reasonable game with fairly decent winning chances using the b6 variation. Black still doesn't have as much counterplay as in the Nc3 variations, but he isn't being grinded down as much as in the main line. The Accelerated Dragon is still a fine opening, just with a drawish tendency in the Maroczy bind.

exigentsky - if you enjoy studying openings and have time for it then I think you are better off looking at the more "unsound" ones with tricks and pitfalls for your opponents to fall into. The sicilian is an excellent choice, but maybe one of the variations which GMs tend to avoid. I love some of the variations with an early e5 for Black - I know from experience that White will often put all his pieces on the "wrong" squares and concede the opening advantage quite early on.

You are not playing at GM level and the vast majority of your opponents will be out of their book knowledge very quickly (especially in OTB games where people can't look it up online or in a book).

I play several openings as White and Black which I know are bad if my opponent happens to know the best moves, but they very rarely do. They are even less likely to know the basic ideas and standard maneuvers / attacks associated with the lines I play.

When I was younger I played the Stonewall Attack exclusively as White (even against 1...d6!) and had very good results with it because my opponents often didn't understand that I was going for a kingside attack until a move or three too late. I had a fantastic feel for the positions which arose and knew instinctively when I should liquidise to an ending and even some of the plans which had worked for me in those endings. And this was a worst case scenario - many of the games ended quickly when my opponent got mated after a standard sacrifice on h7.

The problem with the lines of the French defense that you are looking at are that you are unlikely to gain much advantage even against an opponent who has no opening knowledge whatsoever. Natural looking moves will work perfectly well for them and all your analysis and studying will count for very little.