The French is driving me crazy

The easiest way to deal with the French, although not in the context of playing for a win neccessarily, is simply to work one of the exchange systems.

Originally posted by Elmyr
I think my record vs. the French has got to be around 25% at this point. I've been playing 3.Nc3 and just getting smashed. In the Winnawer I never have any idea what is going on, and I mean this literally. I just played a game where I was sure I has an advantage... Turn on Fritz, my position is so bad it's giving -2.00. No tactics just a really crappy position ...[text shortened]... ere any easier systems out there that aren't just cop outs (e.g. exchange variation, KIA)?

I know several IMs and GMs say that 3.Nc3 is the way to go in refuting the French. But like you, I didn't seem to play well with 3.Nc3, and thus have been playing 3.Nd2 for months now.

Originally posted by torten
[pgn]1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Bd3 {!? now 99.9% of your opponents are out of book,think you're an idiot and they have an easy win} dxe4 4.Bxe4 Nf6 5.Bd3 {or 5.Bf3 and that's all the theory I know.I think it's pretty much all there is too.Game on!}[/pgn]

Yeah, but now Black has exactly what he wants: the White centre is halved, and he himself has half a move development plus the initiative. Playable for White, certainly, but you'll be playing White as if you were Black. That's not exactly bad, but it's certainly not good.

Richard

Originally posted by moon1969
I know several IMs and GMs say that 3.Nc3 is the way to go in refuting the French. But like you, I didn't seem to play well with 3.Nc3, and thus have been playing 3.Nd2 for months now.

3. Nd2 has the advantage, at least, of disabling the Winawer, while leaving you with exactly the same play after the "normal" 3... dxe4 4. Nxe4. There may be tricks available after Nd2 that aren't there after Nc3, but I don't know of any. The Marshall, too, seems no more dangerous after Nd2 than after Nc3.

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Yeah, but now Black has exactly what he wants: the White centre is halved, and he himself has half a move development plus the initiative. Playable for White, certainly, but you'll be playing White as if you were Black. That's not exactly bad, but it's certainly not good.

Richard

Hm,why would white be playing as black?And how does black have the initiative?

It's just a level position,which you'd also reach in the common french lines if both sides know them,where you've cut out french theory.
You do not have a typical french position where your opponent feels at home,and if you play it a lot you'll have experience on your side.
He who plays best wins.

Good enough for me.

Originally posted by grenzwolf
Let it put me this way:
My actual CC ELO being above 2400 I think I am a very experienced (and good) CC player.

There are few things more pathetic than reading about someone bragging about their CC rating.

I'd like to see how you do in real chess. You know, that archaic form of the game where you use only your own mind to make the moves. Care to meet online for some fast games (where cheating would not be possible)?

I'm looking forward to a creative and imaginative backdown speech!

Originally posted by Cube Equity
There are few things more pathetic than reading about someone bragging about their CC rating.

I'd like to see how you do in real chess. You know, that archaic form of the game where you use only your own mind to make the moves. Care to meet online for some fast games (where cheating would not be possible)?

I'm looking forward to a creative and imaginative backdown speech!

Who are you?

Non-subs who have been on the site for under a month will not be taken seriously.

That being said, while I doubt Grenz meant to sound like he was bragging (more likely introducing himself.) there is some truth to the point that ICCF ratings are not as glamorous as they appear.

Originally posted by moon1969
I know several IMs and GMs say that 3.Nc3 is the way to go in refuting the French. But like you, I didn't seem to play well with 3.Nc3, and thus have been playing 3.Nd2 for months now.

There is certainly not, nor will there ever be, a 'refutation' to the entire French Defense opening, nor would any sane and sober GM (unless joking) make such a claim. The Winawer was starting to earn somewhat of a dubious reputation, and some GM's, such as Nigel Short, have dropped it from their repertoir. Although it seems to be experience a resurgence at the GM level as of late.

The current consensus is that 3.Nc3 is White's best try for some advantage. "Some advantage" and "refutation" have very different meanings.

But in practical terms, for most of the people participating in this thread, these small considerations, such as the difference in advantage between 3.Nc3, 3.e5, and 3.Nd2, will be of no significance.

Originally posted by nimzo5
Who are you?

Non-subs who have been on the site for under a month will not be taken seriously.

That being said, while I doubt Grenz meant to sound like he was bragging (more likely introducing himself.) there is some truth to the point that ICCF ratings are not as glamorous as they appear.

lmao, I have more concern for the comfort of the mold growing on my shower curtain than I have for what you take or do not take seriously. Being a sub here is little more than a flag indicating that you're a weak chess player and someone with too much time on their hands. It's hardly a status symbol.

ICCF ratings are completely insignificant. High rated corr chess players are just lackeys with good chess hardware/software/databases/tablebases/etc who can't play real chess.

Originally posted by Cube Equity
lmao, I have more concern for the comfort of the mold growing on my shower curtain than I have for what you take or do not take seriously. Being a sub here is little more than a flag indicating that you're a weak chess player and someone with too much time on their hands. It's hardly a status symbol.

ICCF ratings are completely insignificant. High rat ...[text shortened]... lackeys with good chess hardware/software/databases/tablebases/etc who can't play real chess.

Since your whole first paragraph could apply equally well to you (except the fact that you are not a subscriber, and your humorous conclusion drawn from it), this was a pretty funny read.

If you have no concern for the opinions of others, why did you feel the need to even post? What makes you think that others have, shall we say, less concern for the comfort of the mold growing on their shower curtains (and more concern for your opinion) than you do of theirs?

Did you just post to see your comments in print, or did you think that someone else would read them and care what you had to say? If you want to preach to others, but are indifferent to what anyone else has to say, this is the wrong forum for you- go start a blog somewhere and pontificate to your heart's content.

You are just some anonymous person who has shown up, and apparently has felt the need to go off on someone else, in a manner unrelated to the Post. Maybe there is more to you than this, but so far we haven't had the benefit of seeing it yet.

EDIT: Your post in the "must-read" chess books thread IS a benefit, so this may well play itself out better than I expected. I would be happy to stand corrected if that is the case.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
Since your whole first paragraph could apply equally well to you....shortened

You're either mentally retarded, illiterate, or both. Where do you see a "high rating" in my RHP profile? And since I'm the one offering to play real chess, it doesn't take much brain power (for most people) to conclude that I'm not the one who is cheating.

As for you, on the other hand, my post obviously touched a nerve. You're probably one of those intermittent program cheaters who pulls out fritz/rybka when you're losing or when you're playing against someone who is more intelligent than you are (which must come up a lot).

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
a lot of mindless drivel not worth reposting

Oh, and another thing, champ, you're not the arbitor of which posts are or are not 'beneficial'. You're just a single person with questionable intellect and judgement, so in effect your opinion is worth even less than that of a single person.

Once again I have proven that the best way to get the program-cheating mental midgets who can't play real chess to save their lives out from under the rocks they are hiding behind is to offer to play a form of the game where cheating is not possible.

I just as well could have asked for you by name.

I did not reference a rating at all, so I don't know why you would mention it.

I merely thought it as interesting that you would post as though someone would care what you think, and then turn around and state that you don't care what someone else thinks.

You did touch my funny bone, I'll give you that!

As for the blind, flailing cheating accusation, it is easy for anonymous internet people to make all sorts of baseless claims while hiding behind some innocuous handle.

When it comes to baseless anonymous insults, you really could do better. There are people over in the General Forum who have made baseless anonymous off-subject insults into a witty and humorous art form. They are masters at the craft, so much so that it is almost a compliment to be insulted by them, and you could learn much by reading their works.

The insults of the Masters are always worth careful study, and they can do nothing but improve your insult game. Good luck!

Originally posted by Cube Equity
Oh, and another thing, champ, you're not the arbitor of which posts are or are not 'beneficial'. You're just a single person with questionable intellect and judgement, so in effect your opinion is worth even less than that of a single person.

Once again I have proven that the best way to get the program-cheating mental midgets who can't play real ches ...[text shortened]... e game where cheating is not possible.

I just as well could have asked for you by name.

Based on what I gather of you from these posts you are most likely a decent chess player... I'll be in the blitz room.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
snipped the mindless drivel spewing from behind the keyboard of an anonymous eunuch

Maybe if you learn how to form complete sentences some actual communication would be possible.

I'm sure a great many things cause you to drool and laugh uncontrollably. After all, ignorance is bliss. I didn't make any blind or flailing accusation at all. I made an accurate observation which clearly touched your 'bone' in more ways than one. Go and do a bit of research on the expression "Thy Lady doth protest too much, methinks" My comments obviously applied to you to a tee, which is why you're reacting so emotionally. If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck......

And you're the one hiding. You probably spend most of your life hiding behind a computer. I challenged you to play some real chess and you predictably backed down because you and I both know that you're not capable of playing this game using your own mind. You're missing a key ingredient.

Anyway, I'm not your babysitter. I have no more time for you. Go find something shiny to amuse yourself with. I'm done with you.