AKA The French. What do you guys think about playing against e6 as white? I don’t like it.
That’s why we play it.
Gambit the queen on f7, following Nimzo’s rule of attacking the base of the pawn chain.
The Frenchie will be so startled you can then steal his lunch money. You probably lose the game, but win lunch.
After I play my pet 1.f4, I get really excited to see black blunder with e6.
I wouldn’t say that the French is “The e6 Opening”. Consider 1.d4 e6 2.c4 or even 1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5.
Alex Relyea
as white, i drew more against the French than any opening. Can’t say I was scared of it. Played as black once out of losing a frustrating game the round before, and I got a draw there too.
I used to play the French. Ultimately I decided it was an opening for someone that likes long term strategy with a slower moving game.
Not that the position can’t change in a heartbeat, but overall, correctly played, it tends to grind out to an endgame, or at least a later middle game.
Plus some of the positions that can arise tend to be contrary to what lower level players might think is a good position. For example, in some lines, you practically invite white to brutally assault your kingside… yet with proper play, the offensive will peter out and leave white with a game that’s hard to defend once his own attack fizzles out.
Then again, if you feel like you want to try those lines, it will give you plenty of wounds to lick, and your be much better off in the future when your playing other lines like the Sicilian. NOT being afraid of the opponent trying to brutally assault you kingside will leave you with the mental faculty to easily gauge if the attack has merit, or just allowing your opponent to overstretch his pieces. Nothing more satisfying than your opponent doing the classic bishop sacrifice, knowing full well he just gave it up for no reason at all. -but once his attack fizzles, you have to very quickly go on the offensive.
In those cases, it can boil down to black having just one extra tempo, in spite of white having gave his bishop up, since your king is usually at least a couple pawns down in front of him, leaving him not defenseless, but certainly tying up at least a couple of your pieces.
Edit: some lines, notably the exchange version is drawish, but as a whole, it can lead to some interesting positions that are most definitely not drawish, and some lines are downright rogueish. But like I mentioned, as a line in chess, it tends, regardless of the variation, to be slower game, taking longer to get to the fireworks than other lines like the Sicilian.
I usually play this against the French:
- e4 e6
- e5 …
If 2. … d6 3. exd6. If 2. … d5 3. exd6
Moderator Mode: Off
The second quote explains the reason for the first quote.
In both of the lines given, White spends a tempo on move 2 to grab space with e4-e5, then exchanges the e-pawn on the very next move.
If you like freedom of movement, try 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5. White still exchanges the e-pawn, but doesn’t lose a tempo. After 3…exd5 4.c4, White has good play.
No, that is why I play that line, because I don’t like 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5
Well in my variation you don’t have to play d4. You can play d3 or just leave the d-pawn alone.
The difference between the two lines is not enormous: masters would reasonably argue that in the Exchange French, White has already ceded all hopes for advantage. (And I am told that the right way to play the c2-c4 idea is 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.c4)
But after 1.e4 e6 2.e5 d5 3.exd6 Bxd6, Black already is ahead in development and is probably microscopially better. White moved a pawn three times, and that pawn has now disappeared from the board. Chess is like tennis: why take so much speed off the first serve?