d-pawn opening for a Francophile?

All Things Chess
1

I’ve known for a while that the French Defense is “my” opening as black. As a more positional player, I like that it allows me to keep the position somewhat closed until I’m in the mood to crack it open, but mostly I just like how it feels to play.

Lately, though, I’m running into more players who open 1.d4 (I can’t blame them – it’s my preference as white also), and I haven’t found a d-pawn defense that feels as natural to me as the French does. I’ve been working with the Slav for a while, but it’s not giving me the results I want. It feels like driving an old Chrysler with sluggish acceleration and clumsy handling.

What should I be looking at instead? What d-pawn defense comes closest to approximating the experience of playing the French?

2

I would suggest to try the Tarrasch or Semi-Tarrasch Defence. Also, you might get some ideas from how the great French Defence practitioners (e.g. Uhlmann) responded to 1. d4. IM John Watson wrote very enthusiastic books for Black on French and the Benoni, which is similar in a sense that both inspire strong feelings at the extreme ends of the spectrum: one can either love or hate the French and same with the Benoni.

Michael Langer

3

Try the Polish Benko: 1. d4 c5 2. d5 b5 .

:slight_smile:

Bill Smythe

4

Tease your opponent by playing 1… e6 after he plays 1.d4. After he plays 2.c4 or 2.Nf3, then play the Dutch Defense. That is what Mikhail Botvinnik used to do. He played both the Classical and Stonewall variations as Black. This move order inhibits White from playing gambits. Of course, you might like playing against the gambits, so play 1…f5. That gives you a chance to play the Leningrad Dutch, a very dynamic defense. All of these are “system” openings which give you a greater chance to control the flow of the game. The Dutch Defense is one of the more respectable of the second tier 1.d4 defenses, and is less studied. White really wants to kill Black in the Dutch, and is less likely to play for mere equality. To get winning chances, he has to give you some, too.

The Slav Defense is okay, but gives White too much of a chance to play into some really boring lines. If you are playing for a win for Black, it is essential to adopt asymmetrical opening structures. Playing 1…e6 is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

5

Moderator Mode: Off

I also play the French and have throughout most of my Chess playing days.

Playing against 1. d4 has been one of my longtime problems. Here is a brief history of what I have played and looked at. I think you might find something to consider for yourself:

  1. At first I played the Nimzo-Indian. Both the French and Nimzo-Indian were suggestions for me by an Expert that mentored me when I was a beginner. I didn’t like the Nimzo and I still don’t.

  2. An IM told me to play the Slav. I really didn’t like that as it had many boring positions and I didn’t like it.

  3. I then came across the Benko Gambit. While it isn’t like the French, it does give some good play. You also don’t need to memorize opening variations. I have played this, tried some other things and then come back to it. I currently am playing the Benko Gambit again.

  4. A British GM, Simon Williams, has a couple of DVDs and now a book on the French. He also is a proponent of playing the Dutch against 1. d4. He has a DVD on this as well. I also have a DVD by Nigel Davies on playing 1…, e6 whether White plays 1. e4 or 1. d4. Simon also suggests this. I have his DVD and I have found Williams’ suggestions and ideas on the Dutch to be pretty good. I am currently looking at playing 1…, e6. When I do this, sometimes the 1. d4 player will play 2. e4 in response to my 1…, e6 and we’re back to my French.

  5. When playing 1. d4, e6 you can play the Nimzo-Indian, Dutch and some other openings depending on what White plays himself. So far, I am looking to playing the Dutch very soon in rated games.

6

Try the Black Knight Tango.

7

This is good advice. The Stonewall Dutch is probably stylistically closest to the French lines you’d like to emulate. And you’ll get an occasional 2.e4, with the desired French.

Another nice thing about 1…e6 is that it works against both 1.d4 and 1.c4.

Based on your current rating, there’s an argument for starting with the Queen’s Gambit Declined before you try to learn the Dutch. The Tartakover and/or Lasker variations can be played “for life.” 1.d4 e6 (“A French?”) 2.c4 (“No thanks”) d5.

8

Three votes for the Dutch. Coincidentally, I was fooling around a bit with the Dutch last night and finding that the Leningrad variation seemed pretty appealing. Also, my favorite chess author, Neil McDonald, has two books on the Dutch. So maybe I’ll give that a shot. Thanks for the suggestions.

9

But what will you do against 1. d4 f5 2. Qd3 e6 3. g4 … ?

Bill Smythe

10

Play 3…fxg4 and enjoy the 3-to-2 odds. :slight_smile:

11

The Leningrad is not compatible with the French in the same way that the Classical or Stonewall are, however.

12

Another vote for Dutch (and another 1. … e6 player).

I have and recommend Play the Classical Dutch, by Simon Williams. Black’s strategy in a nutshell: play for the …e5 break.

13

I have had some success answering 1.d4 with 1…e6 as well.

If White plays 2.e4 I get back to my favorite French Defense with 2…d5
If White plays 2.c4 I play 2…b6

If white then plays 3.e4 we have an English Defense (which usually occurs via 1.c4 b6)
For other white moves, I get to choose between a Dutch Defense, a Queens Indian, or a QDG Tartakower.

14

About three decades ago, there was an opening repertoire book by Bernard Cafferty that suggested the French Defense against 1 e4 and the QGD Tartakower for 1 d4.

abebooks.com/9780713419764/C … 419768/plp

I suppose that Declining the Queen’s Gambit by John Cox would be an example of a modern book that one could consult in order to explore this possibility.

uscfsales.com/product_p/b0330em.htm

15

Having recently been dissed for naively thinking I was ready to play the Dutch, I decided this morning to revisit this thread for other ideas. I took the suggestion above and plowed through Chessbase looking for patterns. Uhlmann may have been a “great French Defense practitioner” (his preferred d-pawn defenses appear to have been the Grünfeld and the King’s Indian), but there seem to be a number of even greater ones. Here’s what I came up with:

Bareyev: Slav, Semi-Slav, Leningrad Dutch
Korchnoi: Bogo-Indian, Queen’s Indian, Nimzo-Indian, Queen’s Gambit Accepted, Semi-Tarrasch
Morozevich: Slav, Slav, Slav, with a bit of Slav thrown in for good measure
Short: Dutch, QGD Tartakower, Catalan, BID, QID, NID
Timman: BID, QID, NID
Jussupow: QGD, Catalan, BID, QID, Dutch
Shirov: Slav, Semi-Slav, QGA, Grünfeld (Nadanian), KID
Vaganian: QGD, Catalan, QID, Benko Gambit
M. Gurevich: Leningrad Dutch, Slav, Semi-Slav, QGD Exchange, QID

I’ll confess to having had a passing interest in the Queen’s Indian, but I never followed up because it seemed like a defense that requires a certain amount of cooperation from white to get into. Given its popularity among the above crowd, however, maybe I should take a second look at it. (Though, to my infinite dismay, Neil McDonald doesn’t appear to have written about it.) This survey also validates my initial inclination toward the Slav – and I still think I’d like an alternative.

16

I was exclusively a French player for years. Although it differs radically in terms of pawn structure and general themes, I found that the KID fit well stylistically. It offers the same KIND of Knight play, looking for pawn structure breaks, etc. It does not generally have, however, the ability to play “rope-a-dope” and just go for the ending. The KID also provided the flexibility of only needing to understand one defense other than the French, since you can use the structure against everything else.

17

Tease your opponent by playing 1… e6 after he plays 1.d4. After he plays 2.c4 or 2.Nf3, then play the Dutch Defense.

Works for me, Many times I see 2.e4 which maximizes my chances to play the French Defense. After 2. c4 I can aim for the the Cambridge Springs Defense to avoid the stodgy Slav and Classical. The CSD has only a few main lines and several cheap traps for White to stumble into. The cheap traps pay off more often than you might think as White rarely sees a CSD. If no cheap traps arise, I find play somewhat resembles the French in that black can play a controled games while trying to create forcing breaks.

I play 1…e3 against almost anything. For some reason it seems to throw off 1.c4 players quite often.

For a French player, the Classical or Stonewall Dutch should feel at home. The Leningrad Variation, not so much…

18

Usually the Queen’s Indian is combined with the Nimzo-Indian. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 (if 2.Nf3 Black can play 2…b6 immediately or first play 2…e6 and follow up later with …b6) e6, if White plays 3.Nc3 Black plays 3…Bb4 (Nimzo-Indian) and if White plays 3.Nf3 Black plays 3…b6 (Queen’s Indian).

For several years when I played the French against 1.e4 I played the Nimzo-Indian / Queen’s Indian against 1.d4. My reasoning was that both the French Winawer and the Nimzo-Indian feature the move …Bb4 pinning White’s knight at c3 and possibly doubling White’s c-pawns after …Bxc3+ bxc3. But the Nimzo-Indian has to be combined with another defense (Queen’s Indian, Bogo-Indian, Queen’s Gambit Declined, Modern Benoni) because it can only be played when White plays 3.Nc3. It’s also possible to transpose into the Nimzo-Indian later after starting out with the Queen’s Indian, e.g. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb4.

19

I’d say the biggest change I did, was a couple years ago switch to playing the Sicilian as black. Didn’t do a whole lot of research for a while, just got a feel for the positions. (And took quite a beating for a while.) After a few months, I started to look at the main lines of the sicilian, and got a better understanding of the opening positions.

-At my level of play, it rarely takes more than 3 or 4 moves to get out of book by me or my opponent, so in depth study of most openings isn’t the best use of my study time.

You might find the Old Indian Defence a fine alternative.

20

Based on looking at a number of his games, it appears that M. Botvinnik played the French, Nimzoindian, the Dutch, and several other defenses because he was familiar with the color complex issues of the middle games. These are all defenses with white square control problems for both sides. He tended to have more problems when he played dark square defenses in his earlier years. Only later, when he was done with his battle for the world championship, did he start playing the Pirc, the Modern, and other dark square defenses a little more often. With White, on the other hand, he seems to been very confident playing against dark sqare defenses.

The ideas concerning color control were first discussed by Steinitz and were a distinguishing feature in many E. Lasker games as well as those of Mikhail Tchigorin. For Capablanca, using the concept of color control was almost second nature to him. Botvinnik was well versed in all of these players styles. Most amateur players do not think about color control in their games and often trade off a key piece that they need to control squares later in the game. Perhaps the emphasis on analytical “tree” thinking by books on tactics inhibits taking a step back and thinking of more general positional issues like color control.