This is the first article looking at the game I listed in The Resilience of the French Defence. In this article I would like to take a look at the opening. The game began like this:
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 a6 4.a3 Nc6
In the previous article I was critical of 4…Nc6. According to my research, the normal move for white (after 3…a6) is 4.Bd3 when, oddly enough, black should follow up 4…Nc6. This results in the position in the first diagram.
Black has …Nb4 in mind. The big difference with my game is that white has put the bishop on d3, so now 4…Nc6 attacks the d-pawn, gaining time.
Let’s get back to the game (see second diagram - just before black’s 4…Nc6)
What should black play in this position? Why not just 4…Nf6, transposing into a Classical French Defence, where white has played a2-a3 and black has played …a7-a6 ? This looks like a good plan to me, because in the Classical French black often (usually?) plays …a7-a6 sometime soon anyway, whereas white’s a2-a3 is irregular and probably a waste of time.
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
As well as 4…Nf6, can black play dxe4, going into an exchange variation? The a6 stops any annoying Bb5 checks. This doesn’t look half bad for black…Another issue concerning the French is the recent rise of the Wing Gambit. Nigel Davies new book suggests this line against the French. Can black resist the aggressive approach of this resurgent pawn offer?
Sorry to be pedantic but I think you mean the Rubinstein/Byrne variation(?)
Yes I think capturing on e4 (for black) is viable on move 4, and also would have been viable after my opponent’s 5.Be3 played in the actual game. At the time of writing this I don’t have any reference books to hand, but I think in the Rubinstein/Byrne white’s a2-a3 is a waste of time i.e. making it appealing for black to go down this road.
Rather than comment further I’ll write another article about the opening, covering this approach.
Thanks for the comment,
Mark.