Answers.Body: <p>Peter Svidler answered this in a <a href="https://youtu.be/8jfV9RQrE9Y?t=59m" rel="noreferrer">recent video for Chess24</a>:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p><strong>Why do the majority of GMs and almost all super-GMs play 1…e5 or 1…c5
    in answer to 1.e4 rather than the French Defence (1…e6)?</strong></p>
    
    <p>Peter: I think the answer is twofold. Firstly, both the Spanish and
    the Sicilian offer you a much broader scope to choose from. If you
    play 1…e5 you’re not really limited to one structure, let alone one
    line. That’s not necessarily to say the French is one structure and
    one line, but it does limit Black’s opportunities more than the
    Spanish or the Sicilian. But I think the bigger issue with the French
    is, at least for me, that it was always a very, very difficult opening
    to understand. I didn’t do that badly in terms of practical results,
    but actually understanding what’s going on in the opening is another
    matter – even from the white side, and it’s generally accepted that
    the white side is the more comfortable side of the French Defence.</p>
    
    <p>That
    brings me to my second point. This was mainly to do with the fact that
    I played French games almost exclusively with Alexander Morozevich,
    who put a tremendous amount of work and imagination into building his
    French repertoire. If you do that it becomes a very attractive option
    against 1.e4, because people don’t encounter it that often these days.
    People are no longer very convinced with their choices and I think
    it’s very playable and also a very sharp opening that you could argue
    definitely gives you more counterchances than the Spanish. If the
    white player would prefer a quiet life he will find it harder to find
    a quiet life in the French than in the Spanish.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-11-16T17:00:41.757Z
Answers.Text: Thanks, I am a premium member of chess24, the video that you're quoting is one of his banter blitz sessions or does it belong to a series about something specific (Svidler's Archangels maybe)?
Answers.UserDisplayName: S -
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-11-16T17:16:38.690Z
Answers.Text: @adolfo Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jfV9RQrE9Y at 59:00 ;)
Answers.UserDisplayName: French-d-fence
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-09-24T11:39:48.967Z
Answers.Text: But the exchange variation gives White a very quiet life, doesn't it?!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Hauptideal
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-11-16T16:58:42.297Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-02-06T07:29:45.287Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2017-02-06T07:29:45.287Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: French-d-fence
Answers.Body: <p>I'm a French Defense player. As Peter Svidler opined in his interview on Chess24, "If the white player would prefer a quiet life he will find it harder to find a quiet life in the French than in the Spanish [Ruy Lopez]".</p>
  
  <p>The main reason it <em>isn't</em> played is that it is harder for Black to play the French Defense than it is for White to play against it.  He accepts the following limitations:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>He is facing a White pawn at e5 for much of the game in many of the variations</li>
  <li>As a result, his king's knight rarely gets to sit comfortably on f6</li>
  <li>As a result, White's queen often goes raiding on the kingside</li>
  <li>As a result, Black often can't castle safely on the kingside.</li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>These are not problems that most players are comfortable having.</p>
  
  <p>But I play it because:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>It's relatively easy to get the game into areas where I'm better prepared (and in more familiary territory) than White, which is unnerving to a lot of players of White</li>
  <li>It's a fighting defence, with a few traps, clever stratagems, and ways to knock White into burning a lot of time on his clock</li>
  <li>It shows you have nerve, and and that you have probably put a fair amount of effort into learning how to play a defence that can be tricky to handle. This can be intimidating by itself.</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>Obviously, at the GM and Super-GM levels, the players stay pretty booked-up, and you have to be really adventurous to suprise them (think Sveshnikov/Pelikan Sicilian, Scotch Game, King's Gambit, and so on, which were considered either unplayable or too quiet to be useful when they resurfaced in the latter half of the last century, typically with great success).  Many of these players are now starting to try unorthodox ideas in the older established openings, like the Italian Game (Giuoco Piano).  The French may get another day in the sun.</p>
  
  <p>In the meantime, it <em>is</em> getting played by the likes of Carlsen, Caruana, Nakamura, Anand, Radjabov, Morozevich, Ivanchuk, So, Giri, Karpov, Grischuk, Harikrishna, Gelfand, Leko, Mamedyarov, Topalov, Wang Hao, Ponomariov and others. </p>
  
  <p>So, while it's not getting played as much as the Spanish and Sicilian by the highest-level players, they certainly are playing it from time to time, even in blitz!</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-10-01T04:35:39.917Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-10-01T04:35:39.917Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: jaxter
Answers.Body: <p>No source, and I understand you're not asking about this, but I'm writing this anyway because I suspect you'll be interested.</p>
  <p>I'm told at the highest level (correspondence chess), 1. e4 e6 is <em>at best</em> a draw for Black. In other words, if you play the French defense as Black, you are playing for a draw - actually even worse than that, since you'll be suffering for a draw as opposed to making a relatively easy draw with a line such as the Berlin, or possibly even fighting for an advantage with the Sicilian. The correspondence chess players I talked to didn't go into details why the French is so bad, but I'm guessing it's because Black suffers from a chronic lack of space on the kingside, which is <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/why-is-leela-so-good-at-beating-stockfish-in-the-french-slav">very dangerous against strong opposition</a>.</p>
  <p>Ironically, 1...e6 is one of the most common replies that Stockfish will play if left to its own devices. As a result, I had one correspondence chess player tell me that if opponent plays 1. e4, the best thing you can do to help your engine is to not play 1...e6.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-07-27T03:17:57.250Z
Answers.Text: Further to this, Leela Chess Zero scores very well as White in the French against Stockfish, which also suggests that its not a good opening once you get past the super-GM level.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Noah Snyder
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-07-27T03:52:14.803Z
Answers.Text: @NoahSnyder we should keep in mind though that Stockfish doesn't win the French against Leela very often either, so the data doesn't suggest the French is busted (since Leela is capable of defending it).
Answers.UserDisplayName: Allure
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-07-24T05:54:01.177Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-07-24T05:54:01.177Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Allure
Answers.Body: <p>The French Defense requires a lot of sharp, tactical play. It is "like" the Sicilian insofar as it tries to avoid e5 as a response to e4, and take away the initiative from White. But although "tactical," the Sicilian offers more of a positional game than the French. (I play both, but prefer the Sicilian.)</p>
  
  <p>The French Defense was quite popular in the middle of the 20th century with tactical players such as Alexander Alekhine, Mikhail Botvinnik, and Vasily Smyslov. And before them "lesser" lights such as Rudolph Spielmann, and Mikhail Chigorin.</p>
  
  <p>But today's grandmasters are more positional players. On the other hand, with "top 20," you're dealing with a small sample size, so in another half century, you might see the French Defense popular with the then-prevailing group.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-11T02:29:32.187Z
Answers.Text: Good answer, I upvoted it, but wanted to clarify that Botvinnik was not a tactical player, he was strategical.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Fernando Gonzalez Sanchez
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-06-30T04:30:59.837Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-06-30T04:30:59.837Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tom Au
Answers.Body: <p>The French is played at the highest levels today.  For example, the number # ranked player in the world Caruana uses it.  There is no refutation of the French.  It's a sound opening.  However, it may not be well suited for certain situations.  For example, the exchange variation is considered vary drawish if White wants a draw.  It is true that the current top twenty players seem obsessed with the Najdorf and Ruy Lopez (Berlin Defense) lines as Black because currently it seems that Black can equalize with these lines.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-02-12T22:41:00.003Z
Answers.Text: I thought about this some more and I have another theory.  Currently many of the top players are very young and went through a chess coaching system which emphasizes tactical training.  Therefore, they were encouraged to play the tactical openings as opposed to the more positional French.  It may just as simple as that.  Computers are better at analyzing opening positions than the closed positions of the French. Since many top players employ computer analysis, they may avoid the French for this reason.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ToddM
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-02-05T05:27:10.870Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-02-05T05:27:10.870Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: ToddM
Answers.Body: <blockquote>
    <p>Why is the French defence not played at the highest level?</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>If you consider any statistically small (~20) sample of chess players, regardless of standard, then you will get clustering of openings chosen. This has very little to do with soundness or otherwise and much to do with fashion and temperament. Just look at someone like Nakamura.</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>So I wonder why is the French not played more often.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Normally when black chooses to play the French he wants an unbalanced position with double edged play. However white does not have to agree with this. If white just wants a draw then he can always play the exchange variation when the whole nature of the position changes and a draw becomes much more likely. This is usually not what black wants.</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Which is the line for white that gives the greatest advantage?</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>It is the line where black makes the worst mistake ;-). Seriously, no line gives white a big advantage with best play on both sides. </p>
  
  <p>The Tarrasch is more popular at higher levels but this has nothing to do with size of advantage. I think it has much more to do with flexibility. Other lines commit white earlier to a particular route while the Tarrasch generally lets white keep more options open for longer. </p>
  
  <p>Interestingly the Advance variation is more popular at lower levels because it reduces the flexibility ;-). After this black can no longer play the Rubinstein with ed4 and nor can he put a knight on f6. Of course he can put a pawn on f6 attacking the front of the pawn chain and perhaps this is part of the reason it is less popular at higher levels.</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Could anyone point me to a reference explaining how to "refute" the
    French with white?</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>No, they won't be able to because there is no way to refute the French with white. There can be some scary lines for black, for instance in the Winawer where white plays Qg4, but if black knows the theory he should be fine (unless white has a novelty!).</p>
  
  <p>Now, if you were asking about the Benoni ...</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-11-16T12:27:59.953Z
Answers.Text: Today the world elite plays almost everything. If a line is hardly ever played, there has to be a practical reason. That doesn't have to be a refutation. Possibly white can just pose too many different difficult problems, or there are lines in which white gets guaranteed pressure without any risk. I don't know the reason, but from the last elite french games I have seen, I would guess the 3.Nc3 lines are just too nice for white.
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-11-16T16:55:56.157Z
Answers.Text: @BlindKungFuMaster Thanks, that was exactly what I was referring to. Great answer by the way.
Answers.UserDisplayName: S -
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-12-20T16:03:41.133Z
Answers.Text: Against 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.de  Black has the option of 3...Qxd5, leading to a Caro/Scandinavian type opening.  Less drawish than the exchange, but takes some experience to play correctly.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jeff Lowery
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-11-16T11:53:17.433Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-11-16T11:53:17.433Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Body: <p>I am a French defence player and I enjoy playing almost all the lines (Tarrasch, Winawer, advance variation, ...) because I think the play that follows the opening suits my style and I feel very comfortable. I am a club player (~1800).</p>
  <p>I have realized lately that at the very top level the French is not played. Most of the games that start with <strong>1. e4</strong> end up being Sicilian defences, Berlin Walls (or some other lines of the Ruy Lopez) or even some Caro-Kann (I recall at least a game or two of Giri playing this).</p>
  <p>If we don't consider just the very top level (which I consider to be the top 20 players in the world more or less) we can find some 2700 rated players who have played the French (I recall some game from Vallejo now).</p>
  <p>So I wonder why is the French not played more often. <strong>Which is the line for white that gives the greatest advantage?</strong> <strong>Could anyone point me to a reference explaining how to &quot;refute&quot; the French with white?</strong></p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-01-24T13:48:02.800Z
Comments.Text: In 2022, Magnus Carlsen employed the French several times in rapid tournaments.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Vladimir F Героям слава
Tags: <opening><french-defense><refuted>
Title: Why is the French defence not played at the highest level?
ThreadText: # Why is the French defence not played at the highest level?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2015-11-16)
  
  I am a French defence player and I enjoy playing almost all the lines (Tarrasch, Winawer, advance variation, ...) because I think the play that follows the opening suits my style and I feel very comfortable. I am a club player (~1800).
  
  I have realized lately that at the very top level the French is not played. Most of the games that start with **1. e4** end up being Sicilian defences, Berlin Walls (or some other lines of the Ruy Lopez) or even some Caro-Kann (I recall at least a game or two of Giri playing this).
  
  If we don't consider just the very top level (which I consider to be the top 20 players in the world more or less) we can find some 2700 rated players who have played the French (I recall some game from Vallejo now).
  
  So I wonder why is the French not played more often. **Which is the line for white that gives the greatest advantage?** **Could anyone point me to a reference explaining how to "refute" the French with white?**
  
  **Tags:** opening, french-defense, refuted
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: In 2022, Magnus Carlsen employed the French several times in rapid tournaments.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 6 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_10 on 2015-11-16. Score: 25 | Accepted answer
  
  > Why is the French defence not played at the highest level?
  
  If you consider any statistically small (~20) sample of chess players, regardless of standard, then you will get clustering of openings chosen. This has very little to do with soundness or otherwise and much to do with fashion and temperament. Just look at someone like Nakamura.
  
  > So I wonder why is the French not played more often.
  
  Normally when black chooses to play the French he wants an unbalanced position with double edged play. However white does not have to agree with this. If white just wants a draw then he can always play the exchange variation when the whole nature of the position changes and a draw becomes much more likely. This is usually not what black wants.
  
  > Which is the line for white that gives the greatest advantage?
  
  It is the line where black makes the worst mistake ;-). Seriously, no line gives white a big advantage with best play on both sides.
  
  The Tarrasch is more popular at higher levels but this has nothing to do with size of advantage. I think it has much more to do with flexibility. Other lines commit white earlier to a particular route while the Tarrasch generally lets white keep more options open for longer.
  
  Interestingly the Advance variation is more popular at lower levels because it reduces the flexibility ;-). After this black can no longer play the Rubinstein with ed4 and nor can he put a knight on f6. Of course he can put a pawn on f6 attacking the front of the pawn chain and perhaps this is part of the reason it is less popular at higher levels.
  
  > Could anyone point me to a reference explaining how to "refute" the
  > French with white?
  
  No, they won't be able to because there is no way to refute the French with white. There can be some scary lines for black, for instance in the Winawer where white plays Qg4, but if black knows the theory he should be fine (unless white has a novelty!).
  
  Now, if you were asking about the Benoni ...
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_11**: Today the world elite plays almost everything. If a line is hardly ever played, there has to be a practical reason. That doesn't have to be a refutation. Possibly white can just pose too many different difficult problems, or there are lines in which white gets guaranteed pressure without any risk. I don't know the reason, but from the last elite french games I have seen, I would guess the 3.Nc3 lines are just too nice for white.  
  > **username_0**: @username_11 Thanks, that was exactly what I was referring to. Great answer by the way.  
  > **username_12**: Against 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.de  Black has the option of 3...Qxd5, leading to a Caro/Scandinavian type opening.  Less drawish than the exchange, but takes some experience to play correctly.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2015-11-16. Score: 44
  
  Peter Svidler answered this in a [recent video for Chess24](https://youtu.be/8jfV9RQrE9Y?t=59m):
  
  > **Why do the majority of GMs and almost all super-GMs play 1…e5 or 1…c5
  > in answer to 1.e4 rather than the French Defence (1…e6)?**
  >
  > Peter: I think the answer is twofold. Firstly, both the Spanish and
  > the Sicilian offer you a much broader scope to choose from. If you
  > play 1…e5 you’re not really limited to one structure, let alone one
  > line. That’s not necessarily to say the French is one structure and
  > one line, but it does limit Black’s opportunities more than the
  > Spanish or the Sicilian. But I think the bigger issue with the French
  > is, at least for me, that it was always a very, very difficult opening
  > to understand. I didn’t do that badly in terms of practical results,
  > but actually understanding what’s going on in the opening is another
  > matter – even from the white side, and it’s generally accepted that
  > the white side is the more comfortable side of the French Defence.
  >
  > That
  > brings me to my second point. This was mainly to do with the fact that
  > I played French games almost exclusively with Alexander Morozevich,
  > who put a tremendous amount of work and imagination into building his
  > French repertoire. If you do that it becomes a very attractive option
  > against 1.e4, because people don’t encounter it that often these days.
  > People are no longer very convinced with their choices and I think
  > it’s very playable and also a very sharp opening that you could argue
  > definitely gives you more counterchances than the Spanish. If the
  > white player would prefer a quiet life he will find it harder to find
  > a quiet life in the French than in the Spanish.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thanks, I am a premium member of chess24, the video that you're quoting is one of his banter blitz sessions or does it belong to a series about something specific (Svidler's Archangels maybe)?  
  > **username_2**: @adolfo Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jfV9RQrE9Y at 59:00 ;)  
  > **username_3**: But the exchange variation gives White a very quiet life, doesn't it?!  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2016-10-01. Score: 13
  
  I'm a French Defense player. As Peter Svidler opined in his interview on Chess24, "If the white player would prefer a quiet life he will find it harder to find a quiet life in the French than in the Spanish [Ruy Lopez]".
  
  The main reason it *isn't* played is that it is harder for Black to play the French Defense than it is for White to play against it. He accepts the following limitations:
  
  1. He is facing a White pawn at e5 for much of the game in many of the variations
  2. As a result, his king's knight rarely gets to sit comfortably on f6
  3. As a result, White's queen often goes raiding on the kingside
  4. As a result, Black often can't castle safely on the kingside.
  
  These are not problems that most players are comfortable having.
  
  But I play it because:
  
  * It's relatively easy to get the game into areas where I'm better prepared (and in more familiary territory) than White, which is unnerving to a lot of players of White
  * It's a fighting defence, with a few traps, clever stratagems, and ways to knock White into burning a lot of time on his clock
  * It shows you have nerve, and and that you have probably put a fair amount of effort into learning how to play a defence that can be tricky to handle. This can be intimidating by itself.
  
  Obviously, at the GM and Super-GM levels, the players stay pretty booked-up, and you have to be really adventurous to suprise them (think Sveshnikov/Pelikan Sicilian, Scotch Game, King's Gambit, and so on, which were considered either unplayable or too quiet to be useful when they resurfaced in the latter half of the last century, typically with great success). Many of these players are now starting to try unorthodox ideas in the older established openings, like the Italian Game (Giuoco Piano). The French may get another day in the sun.
  
  In the meantime, it *is* getting played by the likes of Carlsen, Caruana, Nakamura, Anand, Radjabov, Morozevich, Ivanchuk, So, Giri, Karpov, Grischuk, Harikrishna, Gelfand, Leko, Mamedyarov, Topalov, Wang Hao, Ponomariov and others.
  
  So, while it's not getting played as much as the Spanish and Sicilian by the highest-level players, they certainly are playing it from time to time, even in blitz!
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2020-07-24. Score: 7
  
  No source, and I understand you're not asking about this, but I'm writing this anyway because I suspect you'll be interested.
  
  I'm told at the highest level (correspondence chess), 1. e4 e6 is *at best* a draw for Black. In other words, if you play the French defense as Black, you are playing for a draw - actually even worse than that, since you'll be suffering for a draw as opposed to making a relatively easy draw with a line such as the Berlin, or possibly even fighting for an advantage with the Sicilian. The correspondence chess players I talked to didn't go into details why the French is so bad, but I'm guessing it's because Black suffers from a chronic lack of space on the kingside, which is [very dangerous against strong opposition](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/why-is-leela-so-good-at-beating-stockfish-in-the-french-slav).
  
  Ironically, 1...e6 is one of the most common replies that Stockfish will play if left to its own devices. As a result, I had one correspondence chess player tell me that if opponent plays 1. e4, the best thing you can do to help your engine is to not play 1...e6.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_6**: Further to this, Leela Chess Zero scores very well as White in the French against Stockfish, which also suggests that its not a good opening once you get past the super-GM level.  
  > **username_5**: @username_6 we should keep in mind though that Stockfish doesn't win the French against Leela very often either, so the data doesn't suggest the French is busted (since Leela is capable of defending it).  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2016-06-30. Score: 5
  
  The French Defense requires a lot of sharp, tactical play. It is "like" the Sicilian insofar as it tries to avoid e5 as a response to e4, and take away the initiative from White. But although "tactical," the Sicilian offers more of a positional game than the French. (I play both, but prefer the Sicilian.)
  
  The French Defense was quite popular in the middle of the 20th century with tactical players such as Alexander Alekhine, Mikhail Botvinnik, and Vasily Smyslov. And before them "lesser" lights such as Rudolph Spielmann, and Mikhail Chigorin.
  
  But today's grandmasters are more positional players. On the other hand, with "top 20," you're dealing with a small sample size, so in another half century, you might see the French Defense popular with the then-prevailing group.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_8**: Good answer, I upvoted it, but wanted to clarify that Botvinnik was not a tactical player, he was strategical.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2017-02-05. Score: 5
  
  The French is played at the highest levels today. For example, the number # ranked player in the world Caruana uses it. There is no refutation of the French. It's a sound opening. However, it may not be well suited for certain situations. For example, the exchange variation is considered vary drawish if White wants a draw. It is true that the current top twenty players seem obsessed with the Najdorf and Ruy Lopez (Berlin Defense) lines as Black because currently it seems that Black can equalize with these lines.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_9**: I thought about this some more and I have another theory.  Currently many of the top players are very young and went through a chess coaching system which emphasizes tactical training.  Therefore, they were encouraged to play the tactical openings as opposed to the more positional French.  It may just as simple as that.  Computers are better at analyzing opening positions than the closed positions of the French. Since many top players employ computer analysis, they may avoid the French for this reason.  
  
  ---
  
  