tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post6684074905071081372..comments2023-12-28T02:11:22.501+00:00Comments on The Streatham & Brixton Chess Blog: The Interesting French Exchange IXTom Chivershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-79422100456661260162009-02-19T13:16:00.000+00:002009-02-19T13:16:00.000+00:00The only real advantage is, that several French pl...<I>The only real advantage is, that several French players get upset when white continues to play in a very very drawish - and boring position </I><BR/><BR/>See above for my thoughts on whether the French Exchange need be boring.<BR/><BR/>As for the statement that "several French players get upset" when White plays the exchange ... well I suspect that's a myth. See IM John Cox's contribution to the comments box in the <A HREF="http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/2007/12/interesting-french-exchange.html" REL="nofollow">original post</A> of this series.Jonathan Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00293162543015231439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-41193600714957426672009-02-19T13:13:00.000+00:002009-02-19T13:13:00.000+00:00My experience is simple: In the exchange whites th...<I>My experience is simple: In the exchange whites throws away any advantage at move 3 ...<BR/><BR/>ConcernĂng Kasparovs usage ... The wins are due to his strength. The opening had nothing to do with it.</I><BR/><BR/>Hello my anonymous friend.<BR/><BR/>The object of this series has never been to suggest the French exchange leads to an objective advantage for White - I'm quite sure it doesn't.<BR/><BR/>My aim, on the contrary, has been to counter the idea - all too often assumed I've found - that the French Exchange must inherently (a) be dull and (b) make it impossible for White to win.Jonathan Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00293162543015231439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-25640215027475114292009-02-19T12:44:00.000+00:002009-02-19T12:44:00.000+00:00I play the French for more than a quarter of a cen...I play the French for more than a quarter of a century now. My experience is simple: In the exchange whites throws away any advantage at move 3. <BR/>The only real advantage is, that several French players get upset when white continues to play in a very very drawish - and boring position. <BR/>Compare positions of the French-Exchange to those from several main lines of the Petroff. You'll find that they are very similar. <BR/>The positions of black in the "rock solid" Petroff are even a tiny bit worse (IMHO) compared to the french defense.<BR/><BR/>ConcernĂng Kasparovs usage: Kasparov used more of less every minor variation vs the French. The simple reason is, that he - like many other agressive players - had problems with that opening in the main lines. The wins are due to his strength. The opening had nothing to do with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-88560716602744647962009-01-21T07:01:00.000+00:002009-01-21T07:01:00.000+00:00No idea what a 2:2 or 2:1 is! But I agree that a h...No idea what a 2:2 or 2:1 is! But I agree that a half-point saved feels much better than a half-point tossed.<BR/><BR/>I don't find the Exchange French especially tedious. Just 2 draws in 17 games, but then I don't draw often anyway.<BR/><BR/>I think the key to the Exchange French is psychology -- why exactly are you exchanging? It can be good if (a) you have something prepared; or (b) it's your regular line. Bad reasons are (c) you are afraid of your opponent; or (d) you just want something different.<BR/><BR/>Significantly, I got much worse positions with white than with black... because I always chose the Exchange for reason (d). I've concluded that, for me, when I want something different is the *exact* game that I should just play my usual line. It's a lesson I have to relearn every so often, unfortunately.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-81736437307797588442009-01-16T22:51:00.000+00:002009-01-16T22:51:00.000+00:00No I don't think I meant that the French Exchange ...No I don't think I meant that the French Exchange was boring, just that maximising your chances isn't shameful. Most of my games in the French Exchange have been quite interesting. I also had quite a good game as white in it with some Qf3 stuff. Just realised I had reached the split pawn position a year or two ago at the Barnet congress. Shows how much work I put in on past games!<BR/>AndrewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-82100828306650099052009-01-16T14:25:00.000+00:002009-01-16T14:25:00.000+00:00having much the better of a drawThis reminds me of...<I>having much the better of a draw</I><BR/><BR/>This reminds me of when I was a student and people would talk about getting "a good 2:2" or something. What they meant was a 2:2 that was close to the boundary with a 2:1. I could never see how this worked - surely a good 2:2 was one in which you'd obtained precisely the same grade as somebody else despite doing much less work? In other words, rather than being "not quite a 2:1", it was where you had only just scraped in above a Third?<BR/><BR/>On this argument (which I think I still find convincing today, in so far as I can be arsed to think about it) it was surely Short who had the better of the draw, insofar as despite being roundly out-thought and outplayed by his opponent, he nevertheless walked off with precisely the same half-point as did his opponent.ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-2738080508022342812009-01-16T11:56:00.000+00:002009-01-16T11:56:00.000+00:00It's livelier than the Exchange Slav.It's livelier than the Exchange Slav.ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-9213979924076042602009-01-16T10:51:00.000+00:002009-01-16T10:51:00.000+00:00Kasparov used the Exchange French against three Fr...Kasparov used the Exchange French against three French experts each of whom had a pet-line against it. In each case, he found the weakness in that pet-line. He effectively performed three smash-and-grabs, and only failed to beat Short due to a blunder very near the end.<BR/><BR/>(Although, perhaps in the Bareev game, it would be more accurate to say Kasparov found a way to unbalance the position, so black had the two bishops but the worse pawns, and Kasparov being (a) better prepared and (b) Kasparov, prevailed.)Tom Chivershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.com