My last post on the French Defense, a few days ago, attracted more comments than any post I’ve written for at least a couple years. So let’s continue the conversation.
One of the commenters (Brian Wall, I’m looking at you) asked, “What doesn’t beat the French?” Maybe White can do just about anything!
In the spirit of doing just about anything, I started playing around last year with 1. e4 e6 2. c4 d5 3. ed ed 4. cd (diagram).
Position after 4. cd. Black to move.
FEN: rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/8/3P4/8/8/PP1P1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq – 0 4
First, does anybody know if this variation has a name?
I knew, of course, that White sometimes plays this way against the Caro-Kann, but I had never seen it in the French. Here are some of the reasons I felt that it was worth trying:
- Psychology. If there’s one thing a French player can count on, it’s having a pawn on d5. Not in this variation!
- Psychology. For my whole chess career, I’ve been afraid of playing isolated queen pawn positions. Here I’m committing myself to such a position on move four. Face your fears!
- Psychology. I’m a player who likes open lines. This variation should lead to positions with plenty of open lines.
Unfortunately, you can’t choose moves based on psychology alone. There also has to be some chess thought behind them. Like Mike Splane in my previous entry, I found what I think is a model game in this variation, the game Joel Benjamin – Paul van der Sterren from Munich 1994. I loved this game so much that I recorded a ChessLecture about it, called (if I remember correctly) “When Not to Think.”
The thing I loved about this game was that Benjamin played 20 obvious moves, none of which needed any tactical calculation at all. The first time he had to calculate anything was on move 21, when he played a piece sacrifice that won the game. Let’s see:
Benjamin – Van der Sterren
1. c4 e6 2. e4 d5 3. ed ed 4. cd Nf6 5. Bb5+ Nbd7 6. Nc3 Be7 7. d4 O-O 8. Nf3 Nb6 9. O-O Nbxd5 10. Re1 c6 11. Bc4 Be6 12. Bb3 h6 13. Ne5 Re8 14. Qf3 Bf8 15. Bd4 Nb4 16. Ne4 Nbd5 17. Ng3 Nd7 18. Rad1 Qc7 19. Nh5 f6 20. Ng6 Bd6?
Position after 20. … Bd6. White to move.
FEN: r3r1k1/ppqn2p1/2pbbpNp/3n3N/3P4/1B3Q2/PP1B1PPP/3RR1K1 w – – 0 21
Black’s last move was a mistake that gives White a winning combination. But even before 20. … Bb6, White was just about winning! I put the game on Rybka, and it rates the position as +1 pawn for White. And the only Black move that even does that well is 20. … Bf7, trying to trade off material. White’s best move is then 21. Qf5!, with the brutal plan of Nf4, Bc2, and Qh7+. Anyone would be happy with White’s attack here.
If Black had played, say, 20. … N7b6 instead of 20. … Bb6, White would have had a different sacrifice: 21. Bxh6! Black’s kingside pawns are exceptionally poorly placed: not only do they leave the light squares undefended, they are also (every one of them) targets for White’s pieces.
Is that enough of a hint for you to figure out White’s winning move? Benjamin played 21. Nxg7! ripping open Black’s pawn formation. Van der Sterren thrashed a little bit with 21. … Kxg7 22. Qh5 Bxh2+ 23. Kf1! Bf4 24. Nxf4 Nxf4 25. Bxf4 Qxf4 26. Bxe6, but even though material is even White is winning. Benjamin lifted a rook to g3 and van der Sterren had to give up his queen.
For those of you who’ve seen my ChessLecture, sorry about repeating myself, but I think it’s worth looking at the game a second time. White’s development was so natural. Bishops out, rooks to center, knight to e5, queen to f3, other knight to the kingside. And that isolated queen pawn that I was worried about? Not a factor.
I have played this variation twice now in tournament games, and I still haven’t reached a verdict. One was a win and one was a draw, but the results are a bit deceptive. In the win I thought I came out of the opening with little to no advantage, while in the draw I had a huge advantage and botched it. Neither player played van der Sterren’s 5. … Nbd7; one played 5. … Bd7 and the other opted to take a move earlier on d5 with 4. … Qxd5.
With the Two Knights variation and the Exchange variation and the Double Exchange variation (that’s what I’ll call this unless somebody can tell me a better name), it seems indeed that White has plenty of interesting offbeat methods against the French, and we haven’t even gotten to the main line of 2. d4 and 3. Nc3.
P.S. Some of you might have noticed that I have not recorded any ChessLectures yet this year. It wasn’t intentional at first, but I think I’m going to take a hiatus for a while. I’m expecting a very busy period of work in the next few months, and I don’t know if I can afford the time for the ChessLectures and the blog. But I’m not making any official announcements, because I’d like to be able to step right back into doing ChessLectures if I have the time and the creative muse to do it.
