has anyone tried 2.c4 against the French?

while searching for anti french defense i came across this interesting idea, i wonder if anyone has played 2.c4, the author claims to have won many games against masters at blitz.

here's what one of the local chess club members played in a league match:



He lost the rook on a1, never saw it back again, lost after 40 more moves or so, we lost the match and relegated 😛

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
while searching for anti french defense i came across this interesting idea, i wonder if anyone has played 2.c4, the author claims to have won many games against masters at blitz.

[pgn]1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 dxe4 5.Bc4 Qf6 6.Nc3 Qg6 7.Nge2 Bd6 8.d3 exd3 9.Nf4 Bxf4 10.Bxf4 d2+ 11.Kxd2 Nc6 12.Nd5 Kd8 13.Nxc7 Nf6 14.Rad1 Bg4 15.Qxb7 Rb8 16.Kc1 Bxd1 17.Rxd1 Ke7 18.Nd5 Kf8 19.Bd6 Kg8 20.Ne7 1-0[/pgn]

I don't remember ever playing 2 c4 against the French Defense, but I have played 3 c4 against it: 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 c4!?? de 4 Nc3. A fun little gambit that ain't too bad in blitz.

what was wrong with Qa4+ forcing the knight back, am i missing something, its late, my eyes are weak, my mind even weaker, it is very probable. ah now i see it, the knight is protected, oh so sad you were relegated, perhaps you will win promotion next time 😀

I've faced 2.c4 online a few times. I seem to recall that I give White an isolated d-pawn and win the endgame.

There's a good reason that 2.d4 is the main line: nothing else makes sense against a prepared opponent.

My advice to all those that keep exploring obscure offbeat lines against the French, the Sicilian, or whatever: stop wasting your time. Learn fundamental principles of the opening instead: mobility, center control, piece coordination, ...

These will lead you to the main lines without the need to memorize opening books. The idea of the opening is to reach a playable middle game. The objective of the middle game is to reach an advantageous endgame. Endgames are where you'll score your points.

Every win with an offbeat opening that you've spent many hours studying will reduce your eventual rating peak by a dozen or more points, and defer it by several months. One hundred such wins and you may never get over 1600 (or 2000, depending on your innate capabilities).

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I've faced 2.c4 online a few times. I seem to recall that I give White an isolated d-pawn and win the endgame.

There's a good reason that 2.d4 is the main line: nothing else makes sense against a prepared opponent.

My advice to all those that keep exploring obscure offbeat lines against the French, the Sicilian, or whatever: stop wasting your time. Le such wins and you may never get over 1600 (or 2000, depending on your innate capabilities).

did not Fischer himself take off beat lines, as in the poisoned pawn variation of the Sicilian and develop new ideas? yes there is good reason why 2.d4 is the 'main line', but there are also alternatives, are there not? the annals of chess history are filled with those who have taken a fresh look at some variation and sparked new life into it. we can think of Kasparov with the Scotch opening for example, the idea being that it is important to get ones opponent out of his knowledge base and experience and memory of a particular line and get him to play chess, as was demonstrated by Anand against Kramnik in the relatively recent world championship match. yes fundamental principles are important, but so is originality, who is to say which approach is better?

i do not hold to this idea that chess should be to exclusively reach a favorable end game, although it is desirable in many instances, for many a game has been decided upon before that, remember the phrase, 'checkmate'?, so we should be quite clear in the course of a game, whether we are 1. trying to keep our pieces on the board and attacking the king as in a mating attack or until such times as a sacrifice is desirable, or 2. trying to exchange our pieces off with the prospect of simplification and an advantageous endgame as you have stated.

Robbie, check out these videos, he runs through quite a few different lines for 2.c4....

Part 1...
http://www.chessvideos.tv/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=3429

Part 2....
http://www.chessvideos.tv/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=3446

Originally posted by TheGambit
Robbie, check out these videos, he runs through quite a few different lines for 2.c4....

Part 1...
http://www.chessvideos.tv/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=3429

Part 2....
http://www.chessvideos.tv/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=3446

pretty awesome videos, although the opening itself seems best reserved for blitz or over the board play, as it loses some of its appeal in correspondence. really like the honesty of the author, thanks for posting, regards Robbie.

Originally posted by schakuhr
here's what one of the local chess club members played in a league match:

[pgn] 1. e4 e6 2. c4 d5 3. Nc3 d4 4. Nce2 Nc6 5. Nf3 d3 6. Nc3 Nb4[/pgn]

He lost the rook on a1, never saw it back again, lost after 40 more moves or so, we lost the match and relegated 😛

seems to me after 4...Nc6 that d3 would be interesting, with the idea of a king side fienchetto and an f4 push....though maybe not in that order

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
pretty awesome videos, although the opening itself seems best reserved for blitz or over the board play, as it loses some of its appeal in correspondence.

Yes, if someone's going to spend time researching a defense against it in correspondance then it won't hold up. The speed of development in some of the lines is pretty amazing though, I'd imagine you could use it on thi site up to a reasonably high level.

You can use it at a high level, however, you have to use the panov/ bottvinnik attack or it wont work as you saw in the club game. exd4 or cxd4 must be played no matter what then immedeatly d4. There are other defenses against the french that are better.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
did not Fischer himself take off beat lines, as in the poisoned pawn variation of the Sicilian and develop new ideas? yes there is good reason why 2.d4 is the 'main line', but there are also alternatives, are there not? the annals of chess history are filled with those who have taken a fresh look at some variation and sparked new life into it. we ...[text shortened]... eces off with the prospect of simplification and an advantageous endgame as you have stated.

Fair enough. Still, there's a world of difference between Fischer (or Tony Miles!!) playing offbeat lines, and the quest for weird variations by weak players.

As I said, I've faced it a few times online. I found 119 such games, with a scoring percentage of 37%--very nearly the worst in my database. But, in all fairness the one game played here at RHP led to a point for White: Game 19171

34...Ke5?? converted a win for Black into a position of near equality. Subsequent errors turned it into a win for White, who certainly gained nothing from the opening.

As offbeat openings go, 2.c4 has less merit than most.

Sorry, that link should be Game 2321603


This is bizarre. I locate the game in my archive, copy the game ID into a post, click on it, and it takes me to a game between two others.

I locate the game again, and the number has changed.

If you want to see the game, do this: find a game in which I had Black against thesonofsaul that lasted 61 moves. That's it.

Latvian GM Normunds Miezis plays it. Only with different move order. 1.c4 e6 2.e4

Originally posted by Korch
Latvian GM Normunds Miezis plays it. Only with different move order. 1.c4 e6 2.e4

For example,

Miezis,N (2552) - Shabalov,A (2585) [A13]
1st WMSG Rapid Team Beijing CHN (9), 16.10.2008
1.c4 e6 2.e4 c5 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.f4 g6 5.Nf3 Bg7 6.d3 Nge7 7.Be2 0–0 8.h4 h5 9.Be3 b6 10.d4 d5 11.e5 Nf5 12.Bf2 cxd4 13.Nxd4 Ncxd4 14.Bxd4 dxc4 15.Bf2 Bb7 16.0–0 Qe7 17.Qc2 Rfd8 18.Bxc4 Nxh4 19.Bxh4 Qxh4 20.Bd3 Bf8 21.Na4 Rac8 22.Qb3 Qg3 0–1

Miezis,N (2552) - Leko,P (2747) [A36]
38th Olympiad Dresden GER (2), 14.11.2008
1.c4 e6 2.e4 c5 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.g3 g6 5.d3 Bg7 6.Bg2 Nge7 7.Nge2 d6 8.0–0 0–0 9.Be3 Nd4 10.Qd2 Nec6 11.Bh6 Bxh6 12.Qxh6 Qf6 13.Nxd4 Nxd4 14.Kh1 Rb8 15.Qd2 b5 16.f4 bxc4 17.dxc4 Qg7 18.Rae1 e5 19.fxe5 Qxe5 20.Nd5 f6 21.b4 cxb4 22.Nxb4 Rxb4 23.Qxb4 Nc2 24.Qd2 Nxe1 25.Rxe1 Be6 26.Rd1 Rd8 27.Qb4 Rd7 28.a3 Kf7 29.Qb8 Kg7 30.Qb4 h5 31.Kg1 Kf7 32.Kh1 Ke7 33.Qb8 Qc5 34.Qh8 Qxc4 35.h4 Qc2 36.Rf1 Qb2 37.Qg7+ Bf7 38.Qh8 Rd8 39.Qh6 Rc8 40.Qe3 Rc7 41.Qf4 Rc2 42.Rd1 Qe5 43.Qe3 Qc5 44.Qd3 Rc3 45.Qd2 Rc2 46.Qd3 Rc1 47.Rxc1 Qxc1+ 48.Kh2 a5 49.Bf3 Qc4 50.Qxc4 Bxc4 51.Kg1 Bb5 52.Bd1 Bd3 53.Bf3 Ke6 54.Kf2 Ke5 55.Ke3 Bc2 56.Bg2 g5 57.Bf3 g4 58.Bg2 Bb1 59.Bh1 Ba2 60.Bg2 Bc4 61.Bh1 Bf1 62.Kf2 Bb5 63.Ke3 Bc6 0–1


Worth noting, however, of the 160 games in my database in which Miezis started with 1.c4 e6 2.e4, he scored 64%. Quite impressive. Those 160 make up 1/3 of the games in my database that include this position.



I suppose this success is the sort of reply robbie carrobie was looking for in starting this thread.