The title is objectivly wrong, the french is in great theoratical shape 5 years ago it was far more fitting to call it unplayable but engines solved black problems since then. The variation you gave is of course a good one, but nothing which can shake the fact that black has full equality if he doesnt blunder
bro just called french bad and created ww3
why can't some IM destroy this newly crowned clown master who thinks he knows more than everyone else. Guess bro got the ego with the title lol
John Watson would like a word with you.
Isn't it funny, most of the people entering this article already have their mind made up. Most of the people calling this article blasphemy seem to be long time French players who are unwilling to change their minds. Thus, arguing at any cost to justify all of the time they spent studying the French Defense.
If only they actually looked at it without their biased view and tried to learn something. A blog post that is meant to teach/educate you, and challenge a preset belief.
Calling it clickbait is the chat's way of defending themselves from this new opening idea.
One game where MVL crushed a lower-rated GM in the French doesn't really constitute a refutation of the opening
@CondensedWater said in #94:
> Isn't it funny, most of the people entering this article already have their mind made up. Most of the people calling this article blasphemy seem to be long time French players who are unwilling to change their minds. Thus, arguing at any cost to justify all of the time they spent studying the French Defense.
> If only they actually looked at it without their biased view and tried to learn something. A blog post that is meant to teach/educate you, and challenge a preset belief.
> Calling it clickbait is the chat's way of defending themselves from this new opening idea.
I read all 95 comments lol. The main problem people seem to have, is that the title is decieving. It sets an expectation, that French Defense is refuted, but the blog post isn't about refuting the French, but shows an easy to play line, and a game where a better player played a worse player and won.
If you ask what's the problem, this narrative can be used for every opening, e. g. king indian has fairly simple play for black, so is it fair to create a blog titled "1. d4 is unplayable"?
@CondensedWater said in #94:
>
Goated
@CkickyCheck said in #96:
> I read all 95 comments lol. The main problem people seem to have, is that the title is decieving. It sets an expectation, that French Defense is refuted, but the blog post isn't about refuting the French, but shows an easy to play line, and a game where a better player played a worse player and won.
>
> If you ask what's the problem, this narrative can be used for every opening, e. g. king indian has fairly simple play for black, so is it fair to create a blog titled "1. d4 is unplayable"?
I decided to write a part 2.
Only arguments : my 70 games, played by myself, Vladislav Tkachiev's work and arguments and also some ways to try to play this line with black but without any garantee.
The line that you recommend for white, I have heard it called the Hector variation, is very new and the best methods of counterplay might not yet be well known. If I were to make a bet, it would not be on this line being regarded as especially for white in two or three years time.
This topic is now closed.