Answers.Body: <p>In his <em><a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1857446801" rel="nofollow">Play the French, 4th Edn</a></em>, John Watson recommends:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN ""]
  [White "French Defense"]
  [Black "Labourdonnais Variation"]
  [Annotator "John Watson"]
  
  1. e4 e6 2. f4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. c3 d4 6. d3 Nh6 $11 {M.Weiss-Maróczy, Budapest 1895. I think that Black's position is easier to play, and White doesn't seem to have a good way of making 2 f4 interesting.} *
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Black's d-pawn is going to be hard to get rid of, and White's d-pawn is jammed behind it. Black aims for the natural (in the French) moves ...Nf5 and/or ...Qb6, and he's right at home, while White has trouble making progress.</p>
  
  <p>I could only find about 60 games among players rated 2000 ELO or higher involving 2.f4 , so there's not much modern practical experience to go on, but the overall results were 22-25-13. So, it's certainly playable.</p>
  
  <p>Needless to say, Nakamura's played it. He played it in the 2012 Sinquefield Cup, after having first run into it as Black in 2010 at the same tournament. I guess he liked what he saw. Other 2600+ ELO players who've tried it include Bologan, Zviagintsev, Stevic and Yudasin. It's most ardent supporter seems to have been the Moldovan Viktor Komliakov , whose score in games I can find was 4-7-2.  But since he's now 56, he seems to be playing a lot less frequently.  They might be a good reference, though.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-03-27T08:31:20.530Z
Answers.Text: Elaborating on the Nakamura-Seriawan game and Glek's plan quoted in @Dag Oscar Madsen 's answer, could White play 6.Bd3 instead of 6.d3, not fearing 6...dc 7...dc and planning 0-0, Na3-c2, and probably Be4 followed by d3 rather than Bxf5 ?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Evargalo
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-10-01T05:10:24.110Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-10-01T05:10:24.110Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: jaxter
Answers.Body: <p>Grandmaster Igor Glek wrote a survey about <code>1. e4 e5 2. f4</code> in <em>Secrets of Opening Surprises</em>, volume 8 (2008).</p>
  <p>Some quotes:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>With <code>2. f4</code> we return to the nineteenth century, when modern chess understanding made its first steps. The basic idea is clear I suppose - after <code>2... d5</code>to play <code>3. e5!</code> - gaining some space in the centre. So in principle we see the same ideas as in the popular Advance Variation (<code>2. d4 d5 3. e5</code>), but White doesn't permit Black to create immediate counterplay against pawn <code>d4</code>.</p>
  <p>...</p>
  <p>My opponents usually played in the same way as they would against <code>2. d4 d5 3. e5</code> line - <code>... c7-c5</code>, <code>... Nb8-c6</code>, <code>... Ng8-e7(h6)-f5</code>. My reaction was <code>Nb1-a3-c2</code>and then not <code>d2-d4</code> immediately, but first <code>Bf1-d3</code>. Interestingly, we can already see this manoeuvre in McDonnell's and Labourdonnais' games!</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>That's exactly the plan Nakamura followed in the game mentioned in the comments.</p>
  <pre><code>[FEN &quot;&quot;]
  [Event &quot;US Championship&quot;]
  [Site &quot;Saint Louis USA&quot;]
  [Date &quot;2012.05.19&quot;]
  [Round &quot;11&quot;]
  [Result &quot;1-0&quot;]
  [White &quot;Hikaru Nakamura&quot;]
  [Black &quot;Yasser Seirawan&quot;]
  [PlyCount &quot;59&quot;]
  
  1.e4 e6 2.f4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.c3 Nge7 6.Na3 Nf5 7.Nc2 h5
  8.Bd3 g6 9.O-O Be7 10.Bxf5 gxf5 11.d4 h4 12.dxc5 Bxc5+ 13.Be3
  Be7 14.h3 b6 15.Qe2 Nb8 16.Rfd1 Ba6 17.Qe1 Nd7 18.b4 Nf8 19.a4
  Bc4 20.Ncd4 Qd7 21.b5 Ng6 22.Nc6 Kf8 23.Nd2 Bd3 24.c4 Kg7
  25.cxd5 exd5 26.Nb1 Bc4 27.Qc3 Qe6 28.Nd2 Rhc8 29.Nd4 Qd7
  30.e6 1-0
  </code></pre>
  <p>So the answer is: There's nothing wrong with <code>2. f4</code> against the French Defense.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-03-27T08:33:53.740Z
Answers.Text: 11...b6 looks more tempting than 11...h4.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Evargalo
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-17T23:05:30.177Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-05-17T23:05:30.177Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-06-17T09:59:59.497Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Dag Oskar Madsen
Body: <pre><code>[fen ""]
  [Startply "3"]
  [Title "2.f4 against the French Defense"]
  
  1.e4 e6 2.f4
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>What is so obviously wrong with this approach? I ask because it is not even mentioned in the complete Black repertoire book French Defense: The Solid Rubinstein Variation by Hannes Langrock <a href="http://www.russell-enterprises.com/images/frenchrubinsteinexcerpt.pdf" title="French Defense: The Solid Rubinstein Variation by Hannes Langrock">http://www.russell-enterprises.com/images/frenchrubinsteinexcerpt.pdf</a> which includes second move alternatives to 2.d4 such as 1.e4 e6 2.b3 or 2.Qe2.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-05-11T13:59:04.173Z
Comments.Text: After ...d5, Black has a good game. e5 leaves bad pawn formation, or exd5 gives better central control for Black. Not a blunder but definitely not a very challenging setup.
Comments.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-05-11T18:34:52.230Z
Comments.Text: Also, the 2.b3 and 2.Qe2 sidelines usually strive to use different plans and setups than 2.d4. Thus they're justified to include, a well as 2.d3. 2.f4 strives to go for a d4 setup, only, it's not as good as an immediate d4, which has been reaffirmed by practical results.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-05-13T09:18:04.027Z
Comments.Text: Nakamura played this in a US championship a few years back and won, so it's clearly not horrible: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1666545
Comments.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-10-01T05:29:42.727Z
Comments.Text: Most repertoire books don't include it because it's so rare. IM John Watson, considered one of the leading experts on the French, includes it in his _Play the French_, (both the 3rd and 4th edns), but left it out of his _Mastering the Chess Openings_. Viktor Moskalenko, another French expert, left it out of his _The Even More Flexible French_, although he includes the Reti/Papa Gambit, 2.b3.  It just seems to be considered too rare to devote theory to. Keep in mind, also, that 5.f4 is a normal move in the Classical French.
Comments.UserDisplayName: jaxter
Tags: <opening><french-defense>
Title: What is wrong with f2-f4 against the French Defense?
ThreadText: # What is wrong with f2-f4 against the French Defense?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-05-11)
  
  [fen ""]
  [Startply "3"]
  [Title "2.f4 against the French Defense"]
  
  1.e4 e6 2.f4
  
  What is so obviously wrong with this approach? I ask because it is not even mentioned in the complete Black repertoire book French Defense: The Solid Rubinstein Variation by Hannes Langrock http://www.russell-enterprises.com/images/frenchrubinsteinexcerpt.pdf which includes second move alternatives to 2.d4 such as 1.e4 e6 2.b3 or 2.Qe2.
  
  **Tags:** opening, french-defense
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: After ...d5, Black has a good game. e5 leaves bad pawn formation, or exd5 gives better central control for Black. Not a blunder but definitely not a very challenging setup.  
  > **username_2**: Also, the 2.b3 and 2.Qe2 sidelines usually strive to use different plans and setups than 2.d4. Thus they're justified to include, a well as 2.d3. 2.f4 strives to go for a d4 setup, only, it's not as good as an immediate d4, which has been reaffirmed by practical results.  
  > **username_3**: Nakamura played this in a US championship a few years back and won, so it's clearly not horrible: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1666545  
  > **username_4**: Most repertoire books don't include it because it's so rare. IM John Watson, considered one of the leading experts on the French, includes it in his _Play the French_, (both the 3rd and 4th edns), but left it out of his _Mastering the Chess Openings_. Viktor Moskalenko, another French expert, left it out of his _The Even More Flexible French_, although he includes the Reti/Papa Gambit, 2.b3.  It just seems to be considered too rare to devote theory to. Keep in mind, also, that 5.f4 is a normal move in the Classical French.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2016-05-17. Score: 11 | Accepted answer
  
  Grandmaster Igor Glek wrote a survey about 1. e4 e5 2. f4 in Secrets of Opening Surprises, volume 8 (2008).
  Some quotes:
  
  With 2. f4 we return to the nineteenth century, when modern chess understanding made its first steps. The basic idea is clear I suppose - after 2... d5to play 3. e5! - gaining some space in the centre. So in principle we see the same ideas as in the popular Advance Variation (2. d4 d5 3. e5), but White doesn't permit Black to create immediate counterplay against pawn d4.
  ...
  My opponents usually played in the same way as they would against 2. d4 d5 3. e5 line - ... c7-c5, ... Nb8-c6, ... Ng8-e7(h6)-f5. My reaction was Nb1-a3-c2and then not d2-d4 immediately, but first Bf1-d3. Interestingly, we can already see this manoeuvre in McDonnell's and Labourdonnais' games!
  
  That's exactly the plan Nakamura followed in the game mentioned in the comments.
  [FEN ""]
  [Event "US Championship"]
  [Site "Saint Louis USA"]
  [Date "2012.05.19"]
  [Round "11"]
  [Result "1-0"]
  [White "Hikaru Nakamura"]
  [Black "Yasser Seirawan"]
  [PlyCount "59"]
  
  1.e4 e6 2.f4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.c3 Nge7 6.Na3 Nf5 7.Nc2 h5
  8.Bd3 g6 9.O-O Be7 10.Bxf5 gxf5 11.d4 h4 12.dxc5 Bxc5+ 13.Be3
  Be7 14.h3 b6 15.Qe2 Nb8 16.Rfd1 Ba6 17.Qe1 Nd7 18.b4 Nf8 19.a4
  Bc4 20.Ncd4 Qd7 21.b5 Ng6 22.Nc6 Kf8 23.Nd2 Bd3 24.c4 Kg7
  25.cxd5 exd5 26.Nb1 Bc4 27.Qc3 Qe6 28.Nd2 Rhc8 29.Nd4 Qd7
  30.e6 1-0
  
  So the answer is: There's nothing wrong with 2. f4 against the French Defense.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_5**: 11...b6 looks more tempting than 11...h4.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2016-10-01. Score: 2
  
  In his Play the French, 4th Edn, John Watson recommends:
  [FEN ""]
  [White "French Defense"]
  [Black "Labourdonnais Variation"]
  [Annotator "John Watson"]
  
  1. e4 e6 2. f4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. c3 d4 6. d3 Nh6 $11 {M.Weiss-Maróczy, Budapest 1895. I think that Black's position is easier to play, and White doesn't seem to have a good way of making 2 f4 interesting.} *
  
  Black's d-pawn is going to be hard to get rid of, and White's d-pawn is jammed behind it. Black aims for the natural (in the French) moves ...Nf5 and/or ...Qb6, and he's right at home, while White has trouble making progress.
  I could only find about 60 games among players rated 2000 ELO or higher involving 2.f4 , so there's not much modern practical experience to go on, but the overall results were 22-25-13. So, it's certainly playable.
  Needless to say, Nakamura's played it. He played it in the 2012 Sinquefield Cup, after having first run into it as Black in 2010 at the same tournament. I guess he liked what he saw. Other 2600+ ELO players who've tried it include Bologan, Zviagintsev, Stevic and Yudasin. It's most ardent supporter seems to have been the Moldovan Viktor Komliakov , whose score in games I can find was 4-7-2.  But since he's now 56, he seems to be playing a lot less frequently.  They might be a good reference, though.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_5**: Elaborating on the Nakamura-Seriawan game and Glek's plan quoted in @Dag Oscar Madsen 's answer, could White play 6.Bd3 instead of 6.d3, not fearing 6...dc 7...dc and planning 0-0, Na3-c2, and probably Be4 followed by d3 rather than Bxf5 ?  
  
  ---
  
  