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.