If I've learned anything from following chess near the top, it's that if you want to prove anything with white against the French, you need to know a fair amount of theory in whichever main line you choose (whether you're going with Nc3, Nd2, or e5). If you don't know what you're doing in any of the mainlines in the French, it's pretty easy to get killed, so I guess playing exchange and other sidelines is a way of avoiding theory.
In contrast, in the Sicilian there are many more "sidelines" that have mainline status and are reasonable tries for an edge like Alapin, various Bb5 moves. But I also think that players with white facing the Sicilian are much more likely to know theory than to go for something non-theoretical compared to the French (at least judging from your experience)
@RamblinDave said in #2:
> At a guess, because it's strong enough that it's scary to play into a mainline without any preparation, but also rare enough that the effort of having preparation isn't worth it for a lot of people.
I understand where you're coming from, but I would say that logic is more applicable to rare openings. For example, if I am facing the king's gambit with black, I am not going to go for the ...g5 lines which are arguably the biggest test for white because someone who plays the king's gambit with white is much more likely to know the mainline than I am, and it's not worth the effort for me to memorize a lot of theory to attempt to crush the king's gambit when I rarely face that opening anyway
@ThunderClap Heh. 3.Bd3 actually has a lot of bite to it if black is not careful, but it's something that I'd also feel comfortable playing in a tournament game. My issue is with the differing distribution online vs otb. To be fair, I guess it's not just the French. After all, how many people play 1.d4 2.Bf4 OTB vs the reams who do it online
GM M Dlugy
It's a rare sight to see two NMs posting consecutively in #7 and #8. (Of course, both are NMs are very much popular over the forums, but never seen them posting consecutively. )
I suppose everyone has their pet lines. I play 3. Nc3 because I have no problems with learning the theory. I have a friend who plays 3.e5. Another friend has employed both 2.b3 and 2.g3, which are both interesting. The former having been played by the likes of Dubov, Vallejo Pons, Dreev, and Van Foreest. The latter has been tried by Carlsen, Artemiev, and a few other GMs.
@joddle The choice black has in some of these lines is also a part of it. E.g. three systems in main line Steinitz and three in Classical var, and that's not even touching the Winawer.
I've played the KIA primarily. With correct play, white can get a very nagging edge
The winawer is very scary!!! Look at Mvl vs Nepo I. The candidates. What is that!!! Lots of games from botvinik VS tal or Smyslov so if you are not a pro you need to find something that is OK and you don't spend your life on it.
Indeed with white e5 and c5 is a priority.
I like from the white side the Tarrash. It equal. And I am trying the advance French, sacking a pawn and going for the attack lots of fun. I used the exchange as well to have a try but it was not that fantastic
