Fischer said that 1. P-K4 was "best by test". Any opinions on the best defense to 1.P-K4? I like the French Defense myself. The string of pawns from ...KB2 to ...Q4 forecloses on any radical attacks on the Black king. It's also as solid as Mae West on a cold day.

Yeah, but at the time he said it, the only other one he'd tested was 1. N-KB3. Not very scientific.



Eh. French, Caro-Kann and Petroff. Take your pick. If you allow the Ruy Lopez, you'd better expect the Spanish Inquisition, because that's what it will feel like. But the Sicilian will give Black the most winning chances.

Depends on the individual (taste, style, playing strength, willingness to study, etc.), of course.

Statistically, if one went to a massive database (eg Chessbase Megabase) and examined results for all "comparable" (eg IM-IM, GM-GM) pairs of opponents, I'm pretty sure the Sicilian would have the highest scoring percentage for Black. This would suggest (gasp) that Bobby was wrong...

But it all depends on the individual.

I'd rather talk about Mae West, but really, there are eight main replies to 1. P-K4: 1...P-K3, 1...P-K4, 1...P-Q3, 1...P-Q4, 1...P-QB3, 1...P-QB4, 1...N-KB3, and 1...N-QB3. I remember several times when I was engaged in long blitz sessions with somebody who only seemed to know one opening for each colour, when I'd play all eight of these moves in rotation, and then start the sequence again if we were still playing that long. All eight are playable, though the Center Counter and Nimzovich Defense are on the iffy side.

I could have added 1...P-KN3 into the rotation, but resisted it as it usually transposed into the Pirc. In fact, the Pirc used to be routinely referred to as the "Pirc/Robatsch Defense", but as with Sears and Roebuck, Robatsch's name has fallen off the opening in recent years.

One good question to ask: For each of these 8 moves, name a GM who has used it as their sole or primary defense to P-K4. It's easy to think of GMs who have relied on P-K4 and P-QB4. Uhlmann played the French exclusively for many years, and Botvinnik played it quite a lot. After that it gets hard. Not many play the Alekhine at all, but Alburt used it as his primary defense for a long time.

Caro-Kann? Well, they didn't play it anywhere near exclusively, but Seirawan and Karpov played it quite a lot. Maybe more than anything else. (Petrosian has some pretty famous Frenches and Caro-Kanns, but the Sicilian was still his primary defense.

How about the Pirc? Lots of people have played it, including Fischer (of all people) but what GM has made it their bread-and-butter defense? Suttles games are always fun to look at though, because he always used to play this weird-a$$ Pirc-like Hedgehog Defense with Black (which, if I had my way, would be named "The Maggotinot Line").

When it comes to 1...P-Q4 and 1...N-QB3, you're not going to find anyone. A few might trot the Center Counter out as a novelty weapon, but no GM has ever used it as the front line. And as for the Nimzovich Defense, I question whether any GM, including Nimzovich, has ever played it, ever. (And even if you showed me games, I might not believe it).

GM Anthony Miles was known as somewhat of a specialist in the Nimzovich (1. e4 Nc6) Defense. You can find plenty of games. His book It's Only Me contains several, as well as references to games featuring other GMs.

And doesn't GM Sergei Tiviakov employ the Center Counter 1. e4 d5 2. e:d5 Q:d5 3. Nc3 Qd6 as one of his main defenses?

Oh, wait, it's Chess Ninja...only (Classical) World Championship contenders count as "GMs"....

Interestingly, the few times I've played the Nimzovich Defense myself, the most common reply was 2. N-KB3, which I dubbed "The Forgive and Forget Variation" (I'm sure it has another name). White offers to allow Black to transpose into something normal with 2...P-K4 and forget his impertinence in playing something so offbeat.

I remember years back the USCF catalog had a pamphlet about that opening, that I almost wish I'd bought. Their blurb tried to sell it as a reasonable defense (Hey, it develops a piece and doesn't create any weaknesses!), but I don't think many readers bought either the idea or the book. It just doesn't pay to block the QB pawn that way without a strong central presence. But I did buy their pamphlet on Alapin's Opening, which is at least equally offbeat.

Horowitz and Reinfeld both included it in their manuals. I seem to remember Reinfeld showing 1. P-K4 N-QB3, 2. P-Q4 PxP 3. P-Q5! and the Knight gets kicked around a bit (a lot). I think the line after 2...P-K4 was a bit better, and resembled a kind of Old Indian formation.

I remember in Grade School, playing a game with a then-fellow Patzer that went 1. P-K4 N-QB3 2. P-Q4 P-Q4 3. N-QB3 PxP 4. NxP?? QxP, but you can't count on anyone rated over about 850 giving you presents like that.

At the risk of admitting that I sometimes still look at Chess Life (oh, the shame of it ) Soltis' column this month is about the Petroff, and Grischuk almost coming to hate chess from trying to find a way to break through it. (And of course we remember how even the threat of the Petroff drove Anand to 1. P-Q4). That may be the "best" defense in the sense of being the hardest to beat, although the Sicilian is still better if you might want to maybe actually win the game or something. (It's hard to remember that the Petroff was a favorite of a player like Frank J. Marshall.)


Ed, when you play the French, would you rather face 3. N-QB3 or 3. N-Q2? The Winawer is nice, and quite playable, but it doesn't quite meet your "tighter than a floozy's skirt" (or whatever salty metaphor you used) definition. If White plays the Q-N4 lines, Black's Kingside and White's Queenside seem on the verge of collapse the whole game. Fun, but not exactly safe.

The Burn/Rubinstein lines are safer but even then, if White Castles Queenside and starts pushing the KRP, it can get exciting.

Speaking of the French and Uhlmann, here's a recent (Yes, recent!) example of someone trying to get past him with the old Blood and Gutless Exchange Variation and not quite making it.

[Event "7th European Senior Championship"]
[Site "Hockenheim GER"]
[Date "2007.06.10"]
[EventDate "2007.06.02"]
[Round "9"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "E Rotstein"]
[Black "Wolfgang Uhlmann"]
[ECO "C01"]
[WhiteElo "2371"]
[BlackElo "2419"]
[PlyCount "108"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. Bd3 Bd6 5. c3 Nf6
6. Bg5 O-O 7. Ne2 Re8 8. Qc2 h6 9. Bh4 Nbd7 10. Nd2 c5
11. Nf3 c4 12. Bh7+ Kh8 13. Bf5 Qe7 14. Bg3 Bxg3 15. hxg3 Nc5
16. Bxc8 Nd3+ 17. Kf1 Raxc8 18. Nf4 Qe4 19. Nxd3 cxd3 20. Qd2 Qe2+
21. Qxe2 Rxe2 22. Ne5 Rxb2 23. Nxd3 Rc2 24. Ne5 R8xc3 25. Nxf7+ Kg8
26. Nd6 Ng4 27. Rh4 Nxf2 28. Re1 Rxg3 29. Re8+ Kh7 30. Rf4 Nd3
31. Rf3 Rxf3+ 32. gxf3 Rxa2 33. Re7 Rf2+ 34. Kg1 Rxf3 35. Rxb7 Rf6
36. Nc8 a6 37. Rd7 Nb4 38. Kg2 Rf4 39. Rb7 Rxd4 40. Kg3 h5
41. Nd6 Rg4+ 42. Kh3 Nd3 43. Ra7 Nf4+ 44. Kh2 Rg2+ 45. Kh1 Rg6
46. Nf5 h4 47. Kh2 Rg2+ 48. Kh1 Rg5 49. Nd4 Rg6 50. Nf5 h3
51. Kh2 Rg2+ 52. Kh1 Nh5 53. Rxa6 Ng3+ 54. Nxg3 Rxg3 0-1


It's always bad losing with White, but there's nothing quite so embarrassing as losing as White with this variation.

Just had a look at Tiviakov. He seems to play mostly Sicilians, but he has got quite a lot of Center Counters to his credit (not sure if "credit" is quite the right word, but still...).

My favorite French lines, Petro? That's like asking Hugh Hefner to pick his favorite centerfold.

I've played just about all lines of the French. Against the Tarrasch, I'll play the Guimard (3.N-Q2 N-QB3) if I've got a lot of time to prepare it. I'll also play the Eliskases Variation (3. N-Q2 P-QB4, 4. KPxP QxP) as a regular line. If I'm out of shape (which is all the time these days) I'll play 3...N-KB3.

Against 3. N-QB3, I'll play the Classical, the MacCutcheon, the Tartakower, and the Heidenfeld (3. N-QB3 N-KB3, 4. B-N5 B-K2, 5. P-K5 N-N1). I play the Winawer, but not too often. If I do I play the Modern Winawer.

Yeah, but which would you prefer to face? 3. N-QB3 or 3. N-Q2? (Leaving aside 3. P-K5, which I'd assume is your favorite. At least that's the one I most like to face when playing the French.)

The Exchange Variation is the French's big weakness. It's hard to use the French in a must-win game when White can "Petroffy" the opening with 3. PxP. (like Petrified Wood, but harder). There's no similar "Instant Draw" variation in the Sicilian.


Another thing; your question about which line is the best, is vague. Best for whom? For a GM? For a club player? For a beginner? For a computer? For a beginner, I still think 1...P-K4 is the best line. Learn the Double King Pawn openings and ideas behind them, and go from there. I wouldn't recommend the Sicilian to someone just starting out.

I can't say I have a preference for either. It is like looking for a date: blonde, brunette, or redhead, it doesn't matter.

I never worry about the Exchange Variation. Black is slightly better in the Exchange, so Black need only outplay White.

Hoisting me with my own philosophical petard, eh? Well, I guess I ought to enjoy the ride. I used to think that the only good moves are 1. P-K4 and 1.P-Q4, and that ultimately only 1...P-K4 and 1...P-Q4, respectively, would be playable. I'm not sure I think that is the future of opening theory. When you consider the fruitful field for blunders in chess, and the fact that two knights cannot mate a bare king, there ought to be lots of room for risk-taking in the opening.

I am asking what people like to play, assuming that no one plays a defense he consider inferior.

Okay, Guy, valid point. If you are sitting there with Black, how do you react to. 1.P-K4?

Used to play 1...e5 and the Black side of Spanish (R Lopez) if allowed, sometimes Caro-Kann.

Got tired of "Spanish Torture", and C-K gives few winning chances (and opportunities for torture in some of the insane sharp "Advance" lines), so I'm trying to take up the Sicilian.

Currently answering 1. e4 with 1...c5, preferably the Kan (Paulsen), though I've also studied the Taimanov. More fashionable Sicilians like Najdorf, Scheveningen, Dragon require far too much theory/study for me. The Rauzer is somewhat to my taste, but current statistics (granted, higher-level games than mine) are very bad.

I think Black does win more than White with the Exchange Variation, but the main reason for this is that Black is usually the stronger player. If two equally matched players play it, it's hard enough for Black to play to win against a White opponent determined to draw. The Petroffied French makes it even harder.

Against significantly weaker players, I've sometimes played the inferior 3...QxP against the Exchange Variation, just to keep it less symmetrical.

Generally I prefer to face 3. N-QB3 over 3. N-Q2, just because it gives Black more choices. It's also nice to be able to hit White's QP with P-QB4, when he can't play P-QB3 to support it.

According to chessgames.com, Tiviakov has 51 games in Center Counter as Black, including 3 at this year's Corus. He scores well (13 wins, 7 losses. 31 draws). Granted, some wins may be vs. lower-rated players...

Once, when I was young, I played 1. P-K4 P-K3, 2. P-Q4 P-Q4, 3. PxP B-Q3, 4. PxP BxKP. I managed to win after a lot of blunders. I've always wanted to try it again.

Objectively speaking, probably it comes down to either the Sicilian or the open games (1...e5). Both are the dominant choice amongst all GMs, and surely for good reason.

As for the french, I've lately been having fun transposing white into it if they are a BDG player. My main choice is the Scandinavian, but if white trots out 2. d4, I follow it up with e6 and they end up having to deal with a french defense on the spot.

I'm not sure about the Center Counter Defense, at least as far as the 2...QxP lines go. Surely it's "wrong" to bring the Queen out that early, just to have it kicked by the Knight. I think of it as playable, sorta, but also decidedly offbeat. To me it seems like something 19th century players played to avoid the Evans Gambit before better defenses were discovered.

One advantage of transposing to the French from the Center Counter is that it avoids the 2. P-Q3 lines in the French. Assuming that Black wants to avoid them. What do you think about those, Ed? those positions usually end up looking like a Naidni Sgnik (aka King's Indian Reversed). Objectively Black shouldn't have reason to fear it, but it's not what he wanted when he played the French either. He sometimes has to be a bit careful of positions that result after P-K5 by White, in which all of his pieces are bunched over on the Queenside, and Black's king seems alone on the Kingside.

Another cute transposition is the way the From's Gambit can be changed into the King's Gambit after 1. P-KB4 P-K4 2. P-K4! There are a few people who never play Double King Pawn Openings who can get a bit rattled when forced into them. There's also the "Who's Gutsier" auction that can go on. "I'm going to gambit." "No, I'M going to gambit!" Is Black prepared to grab the gambit bull by the horns again by playing the Falkbeer? Not if he never plays Double King Pawn openings he isn't.

Yeah I admit the Scandi is a little dodgy. I play the Qd6 lines and tend to prefer a6 with Nc6 rather than c6. For a long while I looked very closely at Kramnik's g6 variation of the Qd6 Scandi, but ultimately I felt white just gets a dominant center for black's rather passive developement.

Really I'm considering going back to the french full-time. I remember abandoning it after feeling frustrated with Tarrasch and exchange line players. The Tarrasch always seemed to give white all the fun with black having to walk a tight-rope, while the exchange line seemed to just take black out of the whole point of playing the french in the first place.

Also I disagree with what was stated earlier about the exchange line being better for black. It isn't, and there are specialists in the exchange with white that can blow you off the board quite quickly if you aren't fully booked out on it. My initial attraction to the french was to avoid those quick-blast-super-theory lines in other openings like the Sicilian, and my results against the classical Nc3 players was quite positive. So when i faced the exchange lines, I naturally felt totally out of my element and never could fully feel comfortable in that opening line. Now when I play online and I face the exchange, I'll just play Qxd5 and deal with the somewhat worse position.

I am in the "Black is better in the Exchange variation" camp. The thing is - the position after 3. exd5 exd5 is a zugzwang Or at least the side to move has to make an immediate concession on move 4 (as if defining the pawn structure on move 3 wasn't enough of a concession; IMO, ability to keep things ambiguous in the center is probably an important factor in many lines, including on move 3 in the French). In the Exchange variation, both sides would -ideally- rather place their knights on c3 and f6 (c6 and f6). But the problem is that if white plays 4. Nc3 or 4. Nf3, black can get his bishops to their own ideal squares - by pinning those knights with Bg4/b4. But white can't do the same with his own bishops: obviously Bg5 on move 4 (or later - after Nf3-...Bg4 and/or Nc3-...Bb4) is impossible, and Bb5 just loses a tempo to c7-c6. White can try 4. Bd3, as that is a rather active square for a bishop, too, but black can play 4... Nc6 - and white will have to play c2-c3, taking away a square from his own knight- which again gives black a better knight.

All of that probably means that white's best try in the exchange variation is 4. c4 - which is a line that feels as different from the other lines in the Exchange Variation as the Exchange variation is from the rest of the French. Even that line gives black a concession - as black can play ...Bb4 which is rather uncomfortable, unlike 4. Bb5+ c7-c6 that I mentioned earlier. I would say black is at least even in the 4.c4 line, too - in fact, one of my last game in the 15 game pool on ICC was in this variation; here it is it is not atypical game for this line, IMO:

[Event "ICC 15 0"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2010.03.04"]
[Round "-"]
[White "fearlessone"]
[Black "Russianbear"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ICCResult "White resigns"]
[WhiteElo "1904"]
[BlackElo "2117"]
[Opening "French: exchange variation"]
[ECO "C01"]
[NIC "FR.01"]
[Time "22:21:42"]
[TimeControl "900+0"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. c4 Bb4+ 5. Nc3 Ne7 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. Be2 dxc4
8. Bxc4 O-O 9. Be3 Nd5 10. Bxd5 Qxd5 11. O-O Qa5 12. Qb3 Bxf3 13. gxf3 b6
14. Kh1 Bd6 15. Ne4 Qh5 16. Nxd6 Qxf3+ 17. Kg1 cxd6 18. Rac1 Nd7 19. Rc3
Rfc8 20. Rfc1 Qg4+ 21. Kh1 Nf6 22. Rc7 Rxc7 23. Rxc7 Qf3+ 24. Kg1 Nd5 25.
Rc1 Re8 26. Re1 Re6 27. h4 Nf4 {White resigns} 0-1

Note how the pressure of the black bishops on g4 and b4 was so big that white first gave up the bishop pair - and then lost a pawn.

As for the 3. Nc3 versus 3.Nd2 - it is a matter of taste - for both white and black. I think the moves are roughly equally strong, but while 3.Nc3 leads to more direct play, the Tarrasch variation leads to somewhat more positional play.

The above thoughts on the Exchange kinda make me think white's best bet is to make some sort of inconsequential non-move on move 4. For example, 4.a3 is kinda sneaky, because it passes the move to black, and prevents a pin on a5-e1 diag in some lines, but of course, black wouldn't have to develop a peace first and could just play 4.... a6! So maybe white could somehow lose a move by triangulation Say, 4. Bd2, and, for example, 4... Bf5 5. Bf4 and white is again a little better

I've lost games to the Naidni Sgnik French, but not because of the opening. I've lost because I am a patzer. I can say this: I don't like Uhlmann's method of meeting it, namely castling kingside and making a huge pawn storm up the queenside. I like to castle long and pawn storm the kingside.

In the Center Counter/ Scandinavian, I wouuld say the ...Q_QR4 lines are best for Black. As Bent Larsen wrote after beating Karpov, "It is a good idea to avoid weak pawns against Karpov." The main virtue of the Center Counter is just that: no weak pawns. Putting the queen on ...Q3 seems wrong to me.

FBX, if you can get your hands on [i]Chess Praxis[/i[ by Nimzowitsch, there is a great chapter in there called "The Asymmetrical treatment of Symmetrical Positions." All you need to know about facing the French Exchange is in there. If you can find it, PM me and I'll try to get you a photocopy of the relevant section.

Yeah, it does seem wrong. Why block the KB, unless you're planning to fianchetto it? (On the other hand, in the Q-QR4 line, you often end up playing P-QB3 and Q-B2, and you can do that just as easily in this line, and you get the QN1-KR7 diagonal earlier).

Just had a quick look at several Tiviakov games. He seems to play the 2...QxP line exclusively. That's good, cause I never liked the Marshall line, for some reason. It feels like you're not really playing the Center Counter Defense unless you're playing 2...QxP. It's hard to explain. Like 2...QxP is the point of the whole opening, and 2...N-KB3 is just a transposition to something else.

But in the 51 Tiviakov games I just saw, he scored +13-7=31 with the Center Counter, so his results are pretty darn good. And he's scored draws with it against the likes of Judit, Chucky, and Nakamura, so it doesn't look like he saves it only for weaker opposition. (He also plays the 3...Q-Q3 line exclusively, BTW.)

The CC Defense as a whole still "feels" wrong, though. Even if you can get away with bringing your Queen out that early, what's the point of doing it? Or is the point simply in proving that you can do it (sort of like Nakamaura and 1. P-K4 P-K4 2. Q-R5 a couple of years ago)? If the point is to exchange QP for KP, can't you do that equally well or better in the French or Caro-Kann? The only advantage of doing it this way seems to be to avoid the P-K5 lines, but who's afraid of those?

To try to answer this, I thought I'd have a look at what the World Champions played. This is a rough guesstimate, but should provide a nudge. Basically, I went to chessgames, and looked at the lists of most commonly played openings for all world champions. They generally register any opening played more than a dozen or so times. The numbers are thrown off a bit by the inclusion of blitz, simul, and offhand games sometimes. They're also thrown off by the exclusion of infrequently played openings (I know Petrosian played the Petroff a half dozen times, but it wasn't listed as one of his commonly played openings; ditto for Fischer's occasional 1...P-K4's), but this should at least provide a rough feel for what moves have been most popular.

It looks like the general rule is that before the war, 1...P-K4 was tops, after the war it's been 1...P-QB4. Of all the World Champions, the ONLY losing score that I saw notched by a World Champion with one of his most frequently played KP defenses was.... Kramnik and his Petroff!

Interestingly, of the Caro-Kann-using World Champions, Botvinnik and Petrosian both played the French too. But Karpov and Anand didn't. That's interesting, because I think of the French and Caro-Kann as being almost "Sister Openings". Both are geared towards getting an immediate, pawn-supported P-Q4 in. But the French secures the KN1-QR7 diagonal at the cost of locking in the QB, while the Caro-Kann keeps the Bishop free.





These break down thusly:




Of course, we're considering only world champions here. What's most popular at the top level is not necessarily what should be most popular at the Club Level, or even the GM level in general. (How many beginners came to grief trying to play the Najdorf just because Fischer did?)

But if the question is what is the "best" move, then we have a fairly clear answer. Over time, the best players have considered the best moves to be 1...P-K4 and 1...P-QB4. Also competing are P-K3 and P-QB3. Nothing else is in the running. (Even Alekhine made no appreciable use of the Alekhine's Defense).

It's interesting that even when the King's Indian was fairly popular, that the Pirc/Robatsch was never anywhere as near popular. They're almost sister openings also. Black relies on similar setups in both, with the main difference being that in the Pirc, White usually hasn't played P-QB4. Little things like that can make a difference. Fischer lost a very interesting game to Benko at Curacao against 1. P-KN3, because he tried to play it like the Long Varation of the King's Indian, but with White's QBP uncomitted, he just didn't have the same kind of play you get in the Long Variation.

I wonder how many games Tiviakov won with theoretical novelties. I think it is worth knowing; is he outplaying people who surprise him, or is he winning by surprising them?

I'm always leery of statistics, as they neglect the tournament or match standing at the time the game was played. If it is the last round and a draw is as good as a loss, you may as well play the Latvian Gambit as the Petroff.

I think the Pirc never caught on because White can launch an attack on the kingside that is a tempo ahead of a King's Indian. In the KID White spends a tempo playing P-QB4. In the Pirc White gets to play P-K4, P-Q4, and P-KB4, but doesn't need to play P-QB4. That extra tempo adds to Black's dangers.

I don't know. Theoretical novelties might explain why he's won almost twice as many games as he's lost. But all I'm interested in now is whether the opening is legitimately playable. If he's played it 51 times, how much surprise value can it have?




Well, in the end, all we're gauging is opinion (albeit the opinion of the game's greatest players). Statistics can be off, but not that much off. We may not be able to judge the Ruy Lopez against the Sicilian this way, but it seems absolutely clear that of the 20 possible moves, there are four of them that the World Champions have favored, and that is all. So collectively, it seems that the World Champions are of the opinion that the best reply is one of those four.

Of course in this case "best" might just mean "most to their personal taste". It doesn't necessarily mean that other moves are inferior or unplayable.

That could be, and the times I've tried it, I've really preferred the Robatsch Defense, with 1...P-KN3, to avoid comitting the Knight, keep open the option of a Suttles-like Hedgehog, and so forth. I do think it's a good idea to play as many lines as possible in casual play to get experience with as many types of positions as possible. I'm amazed at people who don't dare vary from their tournament repertoire even in blitz.

I don't think Tiviakov wins too many games with novelties. His opening repertoire, though eccentric for a higher-rated GM, is fairly consistent: 1. e4 with White, frequent 2. c3 Sicilians and Worrall Attack (6. Qe2) Ruys; Black vs. 1. e4 formerly the Dragon, recently supplanted by 3. Qd6 Scandinavian. I dunno what he plays vs. 1. d4 et al., but it's off thread topic...

Not that it matters, but Tiviakov seems to play mostly Nimzo-Indian/Queen's Indian vs. 1. d4, which is pretty standard for GMs.

I would think that with 51 games there would be a fair number of novelties. Does chessgames track them the way Informator does?

I don't think Chessgames tracks novelties. I've never seen any marked. If you wade through the kibitzes of individual games, some novelties are identified, but it's not worth the effort...

For reference, you could check the Tiviakov Scandi summary page.

Thanks for the link, Guy. Scandi--sounds like a girl with kinky underwear. Or some sort of clever household cleaning product.

And in a sense, the Center Counter is another sister, or stepsister at least, to both the French and Caro-Kann. All three defenses have the goal of challenging White's KP with P-Q4. But the French and Caro-Kann both prepare the advance, while the Center Counter just plays it immediately, with no pawn support.

I would say the Caro-Kann and the Center Counter are more closely related, as they both liberate the queen's bishop. The French is more like a cousin, and one with a bad attitude. It says, "I'll take the bad bishop. Let's see what you can do about it, tough guy." It's more defiant than the other two, like a truck stop waitress with a cigarette and a pot of hot coffee held in a menacing way over your head.

Yeah, the French is more open-ended that way. If White plays it one way, Black's QP ends up exchanged for White's KP, the same as in the Caro-Kann and Center Counter. But if White plays it another way, both those pawns stay on the board, the center gets locked, and Black has his KB2 square safe from any attacks on the long diagonal, but also has a bad bishop.


Now, in the same sense, 1...P-K4 and 1...P-QB4 are sister openings also. Unlike the first three, they ignore White's KP, and set themselves the goal of challenging the Q5 square instead. And it seems like a lot of world champions have played one of those two moves, but not the first three. Euwe and Spassky (and even Fischer and Kramnik) almost always replied to P-K4 with with either P-K4 or P-QB4. The same is almost true of Anand, but he's slipped a few Caro-Kanns into the mix. Not very many, but enough for it to be considered a part of his repertoire, rather than just a surprise weapon. The main difference between them is that if White goes on to play P-Q4 (as he really wants to), after P-K4, both sides lose one of their center pawns. If White plays P-Q4 after Black's P-QB4, Black keeps both his center pawns after the exchange, but also has more space, since Black's two center pawns block his development a bit.


So, let's take those first 5 moves. White has played P-K4, and conventional wisdom dictates that he really wants to play P-Q4 as well. What does Black do about it? Three of the moves we looked at seek to stop him by challenging the K5 square. The other two seek to do it by challenging the Q5 square. The Pirc/Robatsch is another kettle of fish altogether. The first 5 all make some attempt to inhibit White's P-Q4, while the Pirc, in hypermodern fashion, just lets him go ahead and play it, and tries to shoot at the center from the wings.

At first glance, the Alekhine's Defense is similar to the French/Caro-Kann/Center Counter, in that it goes after White's KP. But not in the same way. It makes no effort to exchange the pawn off, at least not right away. The whole idea is to let White build his center, and then take shots at it. So, in that way, Alekhine's Defense is a lot closer to the Pirc than to the first three.


Finally, we have the Nimzovich Defense, which ends up the oddball again. What's the point behind it? In one sense, it's like P-K4 and P-QB4, in challenging the Q5 square. But it doesn't do it in any meaningful way, as White can just play 2. P-Q4 anyway. So, perhaps the point is to provide support for P-K4 on Move 2. (But why not just play it on Move 1?). Maybe the point is to get White to play P-Q5, chase the Knight to K2, seal the center, and use the Knight to support an eventual P-KB4 (as in the Old Indian?)? Or maybe after 3. PxP, to get White to chase the Knight around, like a mirror Alekhine, and build a center that will prove weak? I'm not sure, I just haven't seen enough of this opening to know what the heck Black is trying to do with it.


Anyway, the point of all this discussion is to try to change the question a bit. Rather than ask what's the best move, let's ask what's the best IDEA? After 1. P-K4, should Black's top priority be to challenge White's KP, or to try to challenge the Q5 square?

If you challenge the king pawn the tension rises, which leads to greater chances of an early liquidation; by delaying that, one gets more time to discover a blunder from one's opponent. Maybe that's why 1...P-K4 and 1...P-QB4 are so popular at the GM level.

The Alekhine, modern lines (Bg4), is the best defence. It is extremely solid, nothing compares. However it is seldom played among GMs so they haven't realized it yet. It is not very similar to the Pirc because in the Pirc white has much greater freedom, he can castle long if he wants, for example. Carlsen has played an unusual variant.
/Mats

Like it, Ed! More anthropomorphisms of chess openings please.

This is almost exactly where I am, Guy. In my 4 years of playing chess seriously (not well, but seriously) I've always played the Sicilian. I started with the Najdorf but got too many hammerings so a year or so ago I switched to the Kan / Paulsen. I'm quite liking it - much harder for White to steamroller you but counter-attacking possibilities tend to arise if Black is patient enough.

The French waitress grabbed the upstart American grandmaster by his tie, fixing his innocent American eyes with her cold Parisian blues. "So," she cooed and snarled with inimitable Gallic charm, "you think you can play the king's pawn against me, like you are Bobby Fischer? I will teach you things you never saw in America." With that she leaned over, her jet black glistening with the lights of the Eiffel tower, and planted one right on his king's pawn.

How's that, Kevin? For more, check out www.YetmanBrothers.com

I have a feeling the French Defense shouldn't be played by anyone under 17 unless accompanied by parent or guardian.

Heh heh, thank you Ed. I read the first chapter of the story on your website and just found myself imagining it in a heavy Noo Yoick accent!

The caramel-brown eyes of the Italian starlet bore into me like seven-horsepower drill press. She'd opened with 1. P-K4 P-K4, 2. N-KB3, and I'd tried 2...N-QB3. When you're playing a dame who is hotter than a steam radiator in January it doesn't pay to try for fool tricks. She brushed back her ebony locks and eyed me up and down like tailor at the mortuary--and not just any mortuary, but the one in Beverly Hills. She reached for her king's bishop and slid him out...3.B-B4.

"We will see," she purred with her Neapolitan accent, "if you are man enough to play the Ulvestad variation."

On that note, I was just looking at this year's Bulwer-Lytton winners, and the ones in the Detective category are pretty darn saucy:





Can you believe THIS only got a Dishonorable Mention??




The Orc Discussion in the other thread naturally drew me to the Fantasy category:



It just kills me that some of these weren't fleshed out into full novels.

The hack writer desperately scrutinized the message boards, which unlike real boards have no splinters, searching for a metaphor he could steal or a clever phrase he could swipe, just like taking money off a bum downtown San Francisco--"purloin in the tenderloin" he called it in his more poetic moments, which, like his good chess games, came mercifully few and far between.

The one, in Historical Fiction, is tres magnifique:

Counter perspective:

Asking instead, not just what the World Champions played as black, but instead, what they had the most trouble handling when they themselves played e4. Kasparov vs. the Berlin, Fischer vs. the French for example.

Any statistics you'd like to share, Dial?

I don't know of any statistics, but Fischer lost at least one famous game vs. the French ( a spectacular thrashing at the hands of Vlado Kovacevic). He was also reputed to struggle vs. the Caro-Kann, though no high-level games come to mind right away.

However, I don't think one could justifiably draw inferences about the Caro-Kann based on Fischer's experience, since in Bobby's time much of the theory of the "Advance" (3. e4-e5) lines had not yet developed. This points to a difficulty in interpreting WC records from too long ago...

Well.....without opening up my chessbase database...I'll leave that up to ____________

In the Winawer, I know Fischer dropped a game to Mednis (back in 62?), also later won against same player.

Then there were the draws in the interzonals to Uhlmann and later Petrosian actually drew him in the Candidates Final 1971 with the French.

Kasparov-Kramnik "Berlin Wall"

Regarding the French, I recall that Karpov never breached Korchnoi's French in world championshp matches, including the 1974 match. Maybe the French is just too mighty?

Hello. Another point to be made here: Remember "coach Kasparov" when recent Carlsen vs. Kramnik chose, instead of e4, chose c4.

The idea is Kramnik's rep. of Petrov/Russian or Berlin STYLE vs. e4.

If I'm black playing for a win, I want e4. I can play off the instability of the e4 pawn. French/Russian/ a style contrast to the e4 player, playing "off the e4 pawn." French (perhaps with exception of the Banzai line/ or questionable Millner) positional pressured pawn levers. Petrov/Russian white to extend if wants more than 1/2. (Note also in the Sicilian where Kaspaarov "switched off" into the Dragon for a spell.)

I remember Uhlmann having better score with Fischer with black than with white - due to the French. Interestingly enough, Karpov beat Uhlmann in a great and famous game that made both Karpov's best game books and the Ulhmann's book on the French: the game was so good Uhlmann thought that loss was worth being included in a book called "Winning with the French". IIRC, Fischer's problems against the Caro-Kan were mostly limited to one tournament. I may be wrong, though. The French was probably a bigger problem to him.

It was a little strange Karpov never managed to breach Korchnoi's French - I don't know if it is due to some inherent solidity of the opening or the way Korchnoi played back then.


As for the Berlin, it was fun to hear Kramnik talk about it on his CB DVD: it was the ideal choice in many ways: Kasparov's weakness - if he had any- were endgames and positions without a clear and concrete way to play, and Berlin is exactly that - it is more about being patient and tiny nuances. But also, before the match Kramnik checked whether Kasparov faced the Berlin, and apparently it was only one or a handful of games that were played a long time ago. Finally, Kramnik checked whether any of Kasparov's match opponents ever played the Berlin - this way Kasparov could have been prepared without actually playing much games with this line - but none of Kasparov's previous opponents played it, so not only was it a line where Kasparov would not be in the kind of position that doesn't suit him, but it was also a line he was unprepared for.



I think black can play for a win after any opening move.

Not based on the instability of the material e4 pawn itself: Hence: Alekhine/
Center Counter/
Center Counter "Gambit"/
Petrov/
French/
Latvian

What is the Banzai line of the French? I'm not familiar with it.

(the Haldane) So titled here: http://jeremysilman.com/chess_bits_pieces/040731_banzai.html

I think a person who calls h5 "Rook Five" should not be allowed to name chess openings. But that's just me

Anyway, if we are to have a Japanese word for a French Defense line, I think we should rename the Milner Barry Gambit into the Arigato Gambit.

Thanks Dial. This line doesn't scare an old Frenchman like me.

The French, mighty? Hmm, no. Respectable and difficult for attacking players to quickly batter into submission? Big yes to that!

As for Fischer's record against the French, I don't remember the exact stats, but he had a plus against it. He did lose to Mednis, but he improved the line and used the improvement to total Larsen in a scintillating Candidates match game that some well-regarded Brits (Nunn and company) thought good enough to include in their Mammoth book of the best chess games.

The Tarrasch is a good way to play against the French.

Finally, about the alleged weakness of the king pawn in the 1 e4 debut: many times it is weak, and many times it can be sacrificed profitably for good compensation. While it's probably not as good, strategically speaking, as 1 d4, with time controls getting faster and faster, the venerable king pawn will continue to be a sound opening choice leading to the production of many beautiful games.

I still think either the Sicilian or 1...e5 is the best defense. Other defenses yield a bit too much space.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Tough guys, he said, time to place your bets."--Charles Simic

Combo Kid, we can finally agree on something. I hate having less space in closed positions. I think that the KID is probably fundamentally unsound. As far as having less space in an open or semi-open game, I don't mind so much as long I as have breaks to play for.

I am of the school of thought that having less space is inherently bad. Black does OK in the French defense because he has some of his own trumps to compensate... Mainly pressure on d4 and b2.

It's inherently bad unless there's compensation, you say. There's the rub. Compensation comes in so many forms. The French has some, and the KID probably does too.

Yes, its just that in the KID black must play extremely actively and precisely to prove that he is not simply getting squeezed. One can easily end up with a practically lost position on move 10 with black in the KID. An example from my play.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Nh3 e5?! 8.d5 Nc5 9.g4!

White has no designs on a quick mating attack, rather, he hopes to hold up ...f5.

Black continued stereotypically with 9...a5?! (yes this secures the outpost, but black must achieve his king side play quickly or he will be lost!) 10.Nf2 Ne8 11.Nd3 Nd3
12.Bd3 Bd7, if 12...f5 then 13.h4! black has no play and less space. He is lost.

Hey, you KIDders: there's a 1. P-Q4 thread ya know.

You're KID-ding!

That's what Tarrasch thought, but it's a little more complex. How bad it is is directly related to how much maneuvering room you have. If you have sufficient room to maneuver, a space disadvantage may be no bad thing. And that often depends on how simplified the position is, and other factors. The QB is a problem in some lines of the French Defense, and no mistake. But that doesn't make the opening bad unless we determine that the compensation is inadequate. Black does start off at a disadvantage, so there's no magic wand one can wave to equalize instantly.

What nonsense is this! Space, no space it's all connected to other factors like Petrosianic says. For whats it's worth what I have seen is that the less talented players keep advocating those advantages that can be seen or named e.g Space, Material, Doubled pawns, Queenside Majority. They can be seen therefor side X is better. Even after the defending side equalizes you will keep claiming space should be an advantage and look for reasoning. This is sound, but the conclusion is wrong. Dynamic possibilities, concrete thinkinh and counter attack in the right time should not be underestimated.

Take the KID, noobs or idiots will say it's a bad defence because.... and you can name 1000 positional traps. Truth is black has found ways to combat this lame space thing and is OK. Just as OK as lets say the Slav (though some might argue that the Orthodox is better when looking at development rules).

Your chess will always be as good or as bad as the idea and conclusions you have drawn from position X. Being optimistic and looking for what is really happening makes good players. People who keep concentrating on the simple things will always be like 'WTF I had some advantage then I got mated'.

Learn from Petrosianic, in chess this defending both sides being able to stay objective is key to good chess. It's why brats like MrF or CK will always have a big mouth but very little to show for. It's nature is human flaw.

Reversed, the opening you play is only as good as the understanding your opponent has.

p.s I recommend Shipovs complete Hedgehog for all those who are interested in space issues, it gives some key insights!

With love,

FideMatt:P

I thought to a player of your caliber, the caveat "all other things being equal" was so obvious as to be axiomatic. It is clear now that I over estimated you.




No these players sit around and hope for a random tactical nuance to save the day. They have nothing to say about chess theory. These players DO make incredible competitors because people get nervous in complex positions, especially when they have an advantage, and due to the fact that chess is extremely rich in tactical possibilities.

It is the positional ideas that make chess interesting to study, and the tactics which make it a great game to play. Tactics allow players to fight back even when in a "lost" position. Tactics are why its so hard to win the won game. Imagine if it were easy to convert a small plus... chess would be a pretty lousy game.

John Watson and his "rule independence" is a load of SHIT. Everyone knew that its okay to break "rules" when it can be justified concretely.

Taking this kind of thinking to the nth degree, we can abandon all heuristics (including the notion of material!) and say that a move is good if it forces checkmate. (Or does not allow checkmate if no forced mate is present) This kind of think however requires a near infinite search depth, something no human will ever be able to implement. Be my guest and try, I will continue to use my "human" advantages.

Matt, you have nothing to say about chess. That's okay though, as you don't need to in order to be a good player.

It's just not true that weak players sit around and hope for tactical jokes to happen. People in the 1500-2000 I have met always seem to have one or a few ideas connected to what they play e.g Space, weaknessesa and patterns. They look for those and just fool around. Usually with very or terribad or sometimes no calculation. Yes, when they are in a bad position they start looking for tactical tricks which just aren't there in the position. The laws of chess are quite cruel.

By the way, these people make incredible competitors is like LOL what nonsense. What GM's and IM's do for a living is having a set of rules (openingbook remembered in words rather than moves) and play according to this. Then when playing an amateur it's waiting for when they do something strange. At this moment they decide what the difference is with the 'main line' think up why the move must be bad. Expose all its weaknesses. Get the advantage and drive it home. Simple! I play that way myself, not being a serious player scoring

I've got lots to say and teach it's just different with the people who want to learn something.

Matt Since August 2009 92 Games 76 Wins 16 draws 0 Losses

I don't know where your meeting players like this. I met a lot of 2100+ players who simply, as you put it, "sit around and hope for tactical jokes to happen." Maybe people are just that much weaker in the US, but I doubt it.

The French Defense is a man's opening. Enough said.

Last year I played 10 matches in the league competition in Belgium playing people all between 2100 and 2300 (scoring 9,5/10 by the way). Usually where IS a plan, just bad calculation and execution! for instance against someone rated 2160:

1. e4 c6 2. d4 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 d6 5. Nf3 a6 6. Be3 Bg4
7. Qb3 Qc7 8. Nd2 e5 9. dxe5 Bxe5 10. f4 Bg7 11. Bd3 f6 12. O-O Be6 13. Nd5 Bxd5 14. Bb6 Qf7 15. exd5 Ne7 16. Ne4 Nc8 17. Ng5 fxg5 18. Rae1+ Kd7 19. fxg5 1-0

it was obvious he wanted his King's Indian with b5 under better circumstances. Yet when it came to calculating Bg4 Qb3 hw failed. This kinda people only play for their idea and execute is badly.

I present you another example from last night me playing white blindfold simul:

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qe6 5. fxe5 Qxe5+ 6.
Be2 Nc6 7. Nf3 Qc5 8. d4 Qb6 9. d5 Nb4 10. a3 Na6 11. Ne5 Bc5 12. Rf1 Nh6 13. Bb5+ Ke7 14. Qe2 Kd8 15. Bxh6 c6 16. Nxf7+ Kc7 17. Bf4+ Bd6 18. Bxd6+ Kd7 19.Qe6# 1-0

Tactical mistakes the poor guy (1540) was just clueless, but it was clear he was trying to develop while failing to notice any tactical nuances!

Two weeks ago in the clubcompetition against someone rated 1630:
Obviously the idea being keeping is simple and safe (Bd2) was the first mistake after this white misses a tempo. Then later Nc6 uncovers problems with d4 black is already better. The main goal in the exchange variation has been reaches occupying e4/e5 and a tactical stupid mistake decides.

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. exd5 exd5 5. Bd2 Nf6 6.
Nf3 O-O 7. Bd3 Bg4 8. O-O Nc6 9. a3 Bxc3 10. Bxc3 Ne4 11. Re1 Re8 12. Re3 f5 13. Be2 f4 14. Rd3 Bf5 15. Bd2 g5 16. b4 Nd6 17. Rb3 g4 18. Ne5 Nxd4 19. Nd3 Nxe2+ 0-1
Played to celebrate the start of the Tour The France (A)

I've got many more examples! the problem is tactical, not ideas!

Matt, Matt...*deep sigh* What am I gonna do with ya?

Listen, you've attacking MrF and me for things we never posted. Do you ever bother to read?

How about cereal boxes? Do you at least read those?

And your posts provide less information than the back of those boxes!

Kasparov spoke of the KID as being "difficult, positionally very difficult". He was alluding to many factors, but space is surely one of them.

I've played the KID for years, probably even before you were born, and it's HARD. White can squeeze for a long, lonnnnng time. Many top GMs have thought it lacked enough space--Korchnoi, Kramnik, etc. And they made a killing against the KID.

Let me put it another way. When is the last time we saw the KID in a world championship match? Ever heard of the Slav? Think there's a big reason why so many play it and not the KID?

I recommend it, though, for class players. Paradoxically, though I fear White's spatial advantage, I love playing the KID now and then, precisely because it's so challenging and a win with the KID can be exhilarating. But there are better defenses to the Queen Pawn--even an old KID diehard like me can cop to that!

As for space, in general, being an advantage...that's practically speaking an almost endless topic, so my remarks will be brief. Just what makes space such a sweet thing to have is debatable, but I love it because the threats you can generate with it are harder to counter because they're so indeterminate, they're tough for the opponent to keep in the forefront of his mind, especially when his clock is running low and he's focused on the purely tactical stuff.

Space--it's a many-splendored thing. And only fools rush in to downgrade its applicability to many positions.

Now, MrF, don't be so hard on IM Watson. That guy wrote some fine books which I want my future opponents to read and absorb and apply religiously. Let them eschew so-called general principles and calculate everything. That way they can get a very subtle, hard to convert advantage, maybe even a clear plus, against me--BUT have very little time left to figure out how to win. Yeah, they could use general principles to save time, but they love to calculate, right? I want them to be principled, and to be pure. As for players of my sordid ilk, well, we'll just keep on swinging the brass knuckles and jabbing in the WWI trench knives.

The back streets, baby. It'll gitcha nearly every time.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Tough guys, he said, time to place your bets."--Charles Simic

Listen, you know how it works, if you claim something bring proof. If you say I don't read something state what I didnt read followed by what the piece of text means and the consequences it had on my reaction. You don't mr empty shell. I come up with material when needed so the only thing I can say is: learn from me.

I refuse to accept statements like the Kings Indian isn't as sound or good as the Slav because it's dangerous to play with less space and white 'can' press on. Firstly because it's like comparing the best of the slav (space) with the worst of the King's Indian (space). And Secondly because the risk in the King's Indian is compensated by the potential of the counter attack.

Once you come to terms with this it's quite obvious that the KID is just another good way of playing against 1.d4 and it's just a matter of taste and playing environment.

You continue with your own practise and how you favor space and what it does for you. Basically this is exactly what I was saying in my previous post. Usually the 'improving' player tries to aim something that is static or visible or both because those are 'easy' to learn and spot whereas Dynamics are much more felt and need some trained talent.

It's exactly those qualities which come out when playing the KID, the feel for the game which makes the KID and amateur killer for strong players. I'll end with a quote from one of my books (Modernes Skandinavisch - Wahls)

'Bei dieser Bauernstruktur kann ubrigens per Definition von einem lcihten weiBen Raumvorteil gesprochen werden, was uns nicht waiter beunruhigen sollte. Raumvorteil namlich is noch kein Wert an sich, wie beispielweise eine MEhrfigur'

Guys like you put me off writing long posts that quote and cite stuff; you'd just ignore it and come back with the written equivalent of a four-year-old sticking his tongue out and then saying, "Yeah, so what, I'm right, you're wrong!"

Basically, I'm not going to waste much time on ignorant, mouthy, arrogant types like you.

You don't know much about my games but you imply that you do--dismissively, and of course, ignorantly. For all you know, my games are filled with dynamic counter-attacks (actually, many are!); and I recall posting some Sicilian Defense games that included some really killer tactics. You've obviously forgotten about that or didn't bother to play them over.

As for the debate between the Slav and the KID supporters--I wasn't really entering that. I said play the KID if you're a non-master because I think it's more fun to play than some other d-pawn defenses. Of course, the KID's good enough to win plenty of games--but that doesn't mean its theoretical soundness hasn't been challenged by many eminent grandmasters--as I also noted.

As for space being something that falls into the category of "static" or "visible"--no, sorry, wrong again. It's subtle, fluid, and takes years of playing and study to even begin to get a handle on it--hey, much like "dynamics"! Beim has some good stuff on this in his underrated book on Morphy. I've played over every game that Morphy played--have you? Speaking of more recent players, there's Shirov--certainly he knows something about dynamics! Played over all his games, have you? Studied them enough to be able to quote whole games? Yes? No? Could it be that the non-titled, non-rated CK knows something more about dynamics than the great Matt? Hmm, could be.

So what are you jabbering about now? Nothing, as usual.

Why I bother, god knows!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Tough guys, he said, time to place your bets."--Charles Simic