help in the french defense (mainly 3. Nc3)

recently i have been analyzing the french defense and it's kinda fun. i haven't started using it cuz i have to analyze the 3. Nc3 lines and the tarrasch (3. Nd2), but the advance and exchange french lines i analyzed look quite pleasant. in the advance french, i enjoy constantly putting pressure on white's center and the 6. a3 lines are fun because i found the response 6...c4 (i didn't 'find' it but it has been recommended  in quite some places), creating a queenside clamp. the exchange french has a reputation for being boring and being symmetrical, but i have found some lines in which you can get sharp play, even including a line where you move your king to f7 and start attacking with your g and h-pawns. i feel like i could do quite well in these positions.

however, i need some help with 3. Nc3. there are so many options, such as the winawer (3...Bb4), classical (3...Nf6) and even a line played by IM levy rozman in the rubenstein (3...dxe4), which involves 4...Nf6 and recapturing with the g-pawn, using the open g-file to attack.

the winawer looks a bit too complicated for me. i have seen positions from many sharp openings (najdorf, dragon, etc.) and at least there i can understand the attacking ideas that both sides employ (obviously not gonna play those cuz they have quite a bit of theory), but i understand absolutely nothing in the winawer when it comes to long term plans.

the line i just mentioned in the rubenstein with 4...Nf6 and 5...gxf6 can be viable but i'd rather like to use it as a surprise weapon or just something i mess around with in not-so-serious matches.

honestly, when it comes to the three choices, i'd probably choose 3...Nf6, because the positions are still dynamic and the plans are easier to understand, but i need some extra guidance. are my thoughts correct or am i misguided? in case you think the classical is the best choice, i still need a player whose games i can follow, since most players at the master level play 3...Bb4. also, against 4. Bg5 in the classical, i think i might want to play the maccutcheon with  4...Bb4, because that looks pretty sharp, leads to positions similar in looks to the winawer and doesn't look as complicated. but again, i might be misguided. i would like to know other people's opinions on this subject on which line is the best and that would help me make my decision,

thanks in advance to anyone who helps me out

Your analysis of the French Defense is insightful, and it’s clear you’re putting a lot of thought into finding the best line to suit your style. Let me provide some perspective on the options you've mentioned for 3. Nc3:

1. Winawer (3...Bb4)

The Winawer is highly theoretical but very sharp and rich in attacking ideas. While it can be overwhelming initially, it’s worth noting that the Winawer often leads to unbalanced positions where Black gets counterplay against White’s centre and king. If you're not ready to dive deep into theory, it might feel tricky to handle. However, over time, studying model games by strong players like Uhlmann or Botvinnik could help you grasp the strategic themes.

2. Classical (3...Nf6)

Your inclination toward the Classical is very reasonable. The positions are dynamic and offer easier plans compared to the Winawer. The ...Nf6 move attacks the e4 pawn immediately, and after 4. e5, you often get interesting pawn structures and counterplay ideas. Lines like 4...Nd7 followed by c5 are thematic, but your mention of 4...Nf6 with recapturing on f6 via the g-pawn (after 3...Nf6 4. e5 Nd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 f6) is a creative way to open the g-file for attacking chances. This variation could indeed serve as a dynamic choice that doesn’t demand as much theory as the Winawer.

3. Rubinstein (3...dxe4)

The Rubinstein (3...dxe4) is solid and can be used as a surprise weapon in rapid or blitz. However, it’s generally considered less ambitious than the Classical or Winawer. That said, the gxf6 line (after 4...Nf6 5. gxf6) adds complexity and attacking ideas, making it an exciting choice for casual games. If you want to avoid memorizing long lines while still surprising opponents, this could be worth trying occasionally.

4. MacCutcheon (3...Bb4 4. e5 c5)

The MacCutcheon is a fascinating hybrid. It blends ideas of the Winawer (with pressure on White's centre) and straightforward attacking play. The positions can get sharp but tend to be more intuitive compared to the main lines of the Winawer. It’s a great middle ground if you’re looking for something less theoretical than the Winawer but still dynamic.

Recommendation

Based on your current goals:

• Stick with the Classical (3...Nf6) for now. It’s rich in dynamic possibilities, and plans like opening the g-file add excitement without needing deep theoretical knowledge.
• Experiment with the MacCutcheon if you’re curious about positions similar to the Winawer but simpler in execution.
• Keep the Rubinstein with ...gxf6 as a surprise weapon in faster games or when facing opponents who know their theory.

Above all, focus on studying games by strong French Defense players in the line you choose, as this will help solidify your understanding of recurring plans and ideas. Players like Uhlmann, Bareev, and Morozevich are excellent resources for inspiration in the French. Good luck, and enjoy your exploration of this versatile opening!

As one that has played the French for 29 years, I can safely say that learning the Winawer is your best bet, especially the Poisoned Pawn. I find the following line easiest for Black, but you must know the 24th move - otherwise, you can wind up in zugzwang.

The McCutcheon has become dubious, and the fairly recent line 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4 5.e5 h6 6.Bd2 Bxc3 7.bxc3 Ne4 8.Bc1! has become a major headache for Black.

The way to cut out a lot of the theory is to play the following instead of 12...Bd7 lines. The only decent sidelines for White are 12.h4 and 15.Rb1

And from here, both 25...exf5 and 25...Qh6+ followed by 26...exf5 are fine for Black.

Hi is this real

idk what you should play. I usually play the advanced, so I don't know much about 3. Nc3.

This is gonna seem insane, but I promise in practical terms quite uncomfortable for white.

Yep, you develop your knight only to put it back on the same square the next move and give white the center. Why in the world would you do that? To take advantage of White's knight preventing c3 from being played. What you most often end up in is a French Advance where black gives up tempo, but white has even more trouble than usual defending d4 and more importantly find themselves in an opening they wanted to avoid.

People that play Nc3 are avoiding the advance and likely don't know the theory and are likely to fall for the many subtle mistakes of the advance. There's also a psychological aspect of playing this, white often takes a confused pause after Ng8, and a concerned pause once you play c5 and they realize the idea. I've had a lot of luck with it and if you like the advance like most French players do I'm sure you will too. Best of luck!

I'd recommend learning the Rubinstein, as it handles both the 3. Nc3 and 3. Nd2 variations from white.

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 (or Nd2) dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7! (the critical move) with 5. ..Ngf6 to follow, forcing white to exchange on f6 or retreat from e4, both with loss of tempo.

It's an easy opening to play on principle, and gives black a lot of good winning potential, despite its drawish reputation. It also allows you to focus your book study the Advance Variation lines, which every French player really has to know.

k umm i gotta clear smth up about this whole post

so, the thing is, the only insight i had into the winawer was the short & sweet version of anish giri's course and some variations (like the 7. a4 lines or some of the tactics in the poisoned pawn) really tripped me up. when this post did not get much attention for a while, i decided to keep analyzing the classical, and i will talk about what i found in the classical. however, when i started my own analysis on the winawer, i found simple yet sound solutions to everything, and now that this post has got much more attention, i should just let everyone know that i have already chosen and that my choice is the winawer

against sidelines on move 4 and 5:-

i haven't really started analyzing these yet. i think i just have to learn the theory and how to handle the positions, the exchange winawer is kinda dry but other than that there is not much else here to talk about.

against move 7 sidelines:-

i found that the best thing to do in these sidelines is castle queenside. against 7. Nf3, 7...b6 (anish giri's recommendation) really works well for me and against 7. h4 i once again just used the course recommendation (7...Qc7). once again since i found the recommendation against 7. a4 (7...Qa5) gets WAY too tactical for my liking, so my simple solution is just to develop the queenside pieces starting with the knight (7...Nbc6) and then the queen and then the bishop. after castling, undermining the center with f6 gives black pretty good play.

against 7. Qg4 with 8. Qxg7:-

against 7. Qg4, i decided to just suck it up and learn the lines with 7...Qc7. i do like 12...d4, the modern main line in the position after 8. Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 cxd4 10. Ne2 Nbc6 11. f4 dxc3 12. Qd3, where black instead of giving up the c-pawn, holds on to it by sacrificing the d-pawn with 12...d4. yes, if white knows like 25-30 moves to hold the balance they will get an endgame, but even with white having several passed pawns, black often holds the balance and makes a draw, because white's kingside pawns are very unstable. against 12. Nxc3 i just play 12...a6 and transpose into a line in the 12. Qd3 positions where black plays 12...Bd7. against 10. Kd1, i just play sound chess and continue with 10...Nbc6 after which play continues 11. Nf3 dxc3 12. Ng5 Nxe5 13. f4 f6 14. fxe5 fxg5 15. Qh5+ Kd8 16. Bxg5 Qc5 and black has equalized. black will try to consolidate and then maybe continue with play in the future.

against 7. Qg4 and 8. Bd3:-

8...c4 followed by 9...Qa5 and 10...Rg8 is my very simple solution (GM anish giri recommends 10...Nf5 i think, but not like the positions are any different because often black plays Rg8 anyways). the positions you get are similar to the move 7 sidelines, where you will castle queenside and then go for a pawn break on the kingside later.

ye so really my opinions on the winawer were just a byproduct of my laziness to do proper analysis combined with me freaking out over tactics that are slightly over my comprehension. also lemme just talk about the classical. honestly, i was probably going for the MacCutcheon against 4. Bg5 and that is fine in my opinion, but @ThrillerFan did state that it has been found that it is a bit dubious and white can get an advantage if they know some theory. i thought the classical steinitz was going to be much more fun than it was with the whole premise of 'white attacks on the kingside, black attacks on the queenside' but really white just is never fast enough with their attack. instead they try to stop black's attack on the queenside which often leads to simplifications. there are SOME positions where black sacrifices a pawn for some pressure, and some sidelines like an early Nce2 to prepare c3 that can get pretty wacky as white, as seen in the first WCC 2024 match where gukesh played like this, but it's nothing compared to the winawer, which i now actually UNDERSTAND. i will probably look at those Nce2 lines in the classical steinitz when i learn to play the classical as white (currently i play a sideline with 2. b3), and stick with the winawer. as long as i don't completely lose control of the game (i.e, as long as i know my theory), i will be fine with the winawer.

turns out you were right. i literally ended up choosing the winawer with the exact same variations you showed, but i think that 13. Ng3 has also been played, just ignoring black and going for the light squares instead. also, did you mean 12. h4 or 13. h4. 12. h4 might be fine but white has to at some point play Qd3 so i think it will just transpose into 13. h4. also i think that 18. Be3 is not actually the main move here (main move i think is 18. Rb1 looking to play Rb3 and target c3) and is actually really only played to get some dynamic counterplay in the winawer, but i am starting to sound a bit too much like a nerd after this much analysis.

overall, i think that with my main weapon against d4 being the king's indian, the closed nature of the position (it's not THAT closed in the poisoned pawn, but i digress), works perfecty for me, who has been trying to find a good opening for black for quite some time.

I've played Nf6, which usually leads to the Steinitz Classical, but sometimes the MacCutcheon, for years. Lately, I've been considering looking into the Winawer, so I'm reading this thread with interest.

Interesting idea by GooseChess of retreating the knight in the Nf6 e5 line. Is that your own invention, or is there a master source I could look into for more information?

Complexity favors the player with the experience edge. This is blacks line, black plays it 36% of games against e4 and it's his main defense, white plays it 4% of games... so black ought to play the winawer specifically for its complexity. Black may not understand the position, but neither will white... but assuming the two players are of equal strength black should understand it better than white and should have an advantage.

I want to mention a variation which no one has talked about.

It was one of my favorite French lines.

The line known as Fort Knox Variation.

Black position is Iron Clad!

You mentioned the above position in your previous comments.

The position is Rubinstein, BUT there are different variations in the Rubstein.

You mentioned the 4…Nf6 5.Nxf6 gxf6

BUT their are few other ways to play as well.

- 4…Nd7 - Blackburne variation

- 4…Bd7 - Fort Knox variation

I really liked the Bd7 line because it is slightly unusual and it has a very solid idea.

Most times in the French the Light Square Bishop doesn’t do a lot because it trapped behind all its pawns on light squares. The Fort Knox variation is kind of unique because it tries to trade off the Light Square Bishop before putting all its pawns on Light squares.

As you can see above, Black position has great harmony.

Black can castle King side or Queen Side.

Black position has no weaknesses and is rock solid.

It lives up to its name “Fort Knox” because their isn’t anything the opponent can do.

I really enjoyed the above line because it shuts down aggressive players very well.

———————————————

1 thing to remember - Your not forced to trade off Light Square Bishop.

You could keep it in some lines White plays.

I was just showing you a very common line where Black does often trade it off.

———————————

I want to show you the main theme of the line.

Black has 5 main key points in the line.

1) Black tries to trade off his Bad Bishop.

2) Black tries to trade off White active Knights.

3) Black tries to build up an attack on White d4 pawn with the help of Semi-Open D file.

4) Black tries to do a key pawn break either in Center with e5 or on Queen side with c5.

5) Black has very solid position which gives Black great flexibility!

- Flexibility is very important because it allows Black to decide on where they want to attack and where they want to castle.

- Black can castling King or Queen side.

- Black can do opposite side castling and launch pawn storm attack on King side.

- Black can build a Center Attack with e5.

- Black can build a Queen side Attack with c5.

I really loved this line because it allowed me to focus in on my opponents weakness. Than try to attack those weakness and because of the lines versatility I was able to change my plans on the fly from game to game.

Some lines are very 1 dimensional and are very predictable.

You can play this line 5 times in row and each game can be completely different because you implemented different strategies in each game.

Yeah, I figured someone would mention the Fort Knox. It's solid, as you say. I tried it a little when I first read about it in Neil McDonald's "How to Play Against 1. e4", which is actually a French Defense repertoire book, despite not mention the French in the title.

I'm not quite sure what black is supposed to do in the Fort Knox. If you just want to sit around and defend, and hope white either messes up from trying too hard to attack, or else gives up and agrees to a draw, then I guess it's fine. But I don't see the active counter play that would let black try for a win. Maybe there is some, but I haven't studied the opening enough to know where it is. It just seemed too boring at first glance.

Lucky for me, McDonald also had chapters about the Steinitz and MacCutcheon for players who decided to try something different than the Fort Knox, which is why I've been playing those for years.

But if we want to talk about the Rubenstein French, there's an even more obscure line, which was the very first way I learned to play the French, MANY years ago. It's Be7 on the 4th move instead of the Bd7 of the Fort Knox. This one's covered in CJS Purdy's book "Action Chess: a 24 Hour Opening Repertoire". That's the book that originally got me started playing the French, though I learned a lot more from McDonald later on.

The Fort Knox variation has many different plans which is what makes it so difficult to beat.

I would call the Fort Knox variation an opportunist opening.

———————————

The Fort Knox variation is often considered to be passive.

The reason why is because Black furthest center pawn is on 6th rank instead of 5th.

White furthest center pawn is on the 4th rank which gives white more space.

However, in chess there are trade offs, The less space a person has the more compact and solid their position often is.

The more space a person has the more weaknesses and the burden to defend there leading pawn space becomes more critical.

———————————

Due to the above reasons, The Fort Knox variation aims to attack White by probing the white position.

Another way to say it is the Fort Knox variation allows the Black side player to be extremely annoying! LOL

When you have no weaknesses in your position, you don’t need your chess pieces to guard stuff. This allows you the flexibility to use those pieces to attack your opponents stuff which can often cause your opponents to be very annoyed.

Here is a nice example:

Black traded off most of whites pieces.

Black develops knight with tempo on White Queen and White retreats.

As Black I decide to play Qb6, The move Qb6 doesn’t really do anything.

There is no immediate gain from the move Qb6.

However, the idea behind Qb6 is to attack White b2 pawn which is being defended by Bishop.

If White develops the Bishop, they have to worry and think about the possibility of Black capturing the b2 pawn.

The threat of capturing something can often be more deadly vs. the execution of capturing something.

The Classical 3...Nf6 is Black's safest bet against 3.Nc3.

- 4.Bg5 isn't dangerous because of 4...dxe4 5.Nxe4 and now either Burn's 5...Be7 6.Bxf6 gxf6, or 5...Nbd7 is an improved version of the Rubinstein (the bishop doesn't really belong to g5).

- 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 can be met either with the over-analysed 7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 Qb6 (yet another poisioned pawn variation), or 7...a6 followed by ...b5 etc which is a tad more ambitious.

- 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Nce2 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.f4 is Harikrishna's line, which was adopted by Gukesh in the 1st game of the current WC match. Ding's 7...a5! (which I find hard to believe that it was invented on the board) is an excellent recipe.

Guys don't teach him the ways the French Defense is so annoying to play against lol

Over twenty moves of pure theory seems a little over the top

Another French line I use to play was Winawer.

Sadly, I never fully studied the entire Winawer.

—————————

I played the Fort Knox a lot in my youth.

I thought the Winawer was to complex for me so that is why I went with Fort Knox.

I played the Fort Knox line till I reached around 1,400.

Than I wanted to play something more complex.

I tried learning the Winawer as an option vs. 3.Nc3.

———————————

The French Winawer has reputation of being a Top Tier line for Black.

I just wanted to mix in at least Pro line into my games.

Sadly, I didn’t get the opportunity to play the Winawer a lot.

I ultimately gave up on the French.

I ended up changing openings to the Sicilian Dragon. LOL

———————————————

The French Winawer line I practiced was slightly different vs. Thrillerfan.

The above moves is how I was taught to play the line.

The Black moves are considered to be more forcing.

The Black moves are also supposed to give Black more flexibility.

The above line is known as the French Winawer: Classical variation.

White main move is Qg4.

The virtue of Black playing Qc7 early, Let’s Black have more responses.

White main move 7.Qg4 can be answered 3 different ways.

Black has flexibility because if you don’t like 1 variation. You can try another.

Black main 3 moves are:

- f5

- f6

- Ne7

I liked the Ne7 line which can transpose into the line Thrillerfan was talking about.

The strange part is I don’t remember Thrillerfan line at all.

I’m starting to think I played the position badly. HAHA

I remember playing the position like the above way.

HAHAHA - you know I’m looking at the engine and it says the line is terrible.

Maybe, that’s why I switched to the Sicilian.

I completely butchered the Winawer opening.

So Bad!

caro kann is better

Same idea but more tactics

The french is better. It is more agressive, while still being solid and it's hard to defend the d4 pawn as white.