Banning the Exchange French

[Roger de Coverly]

A tournament organiser in America would like to ban the Exchange French amongst other rewrites of the Laws of Chess

From http://millionairechess.com/tournament/ ... -policies/

The TD can deem that players are not making a serious effort to play a real game. For example, some unacceptable situations would be:

If two players on the top boards make a quick draw using some well known theoretical opening that forces a three-fold repetition.
If the two players play an intentionally lifeless opening with the object of steering the game towards a dead draw as soon as possible. For example, playing the exchange French defense and immediately trading off all the pieces is not acceptable.
Continuous repetitions in order to get to the time control will be considered an infraction of the rules.

I can't really see the tournament taking place. It's all very well advertising a million dollars as the prize fund, but with the entry fee at least one thousand dallars, are they going to get 1,500 players to sign up before March 31st for a tournament that doesn't take place until October?

The organizers reserve the right to cancel the tournament if 1,500 participants are not registered by March 31, 2014. In such a case all entry fees will be reimbursed in full upon decision.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Evidently not a fan of this series.

[John Hickman]

A tournament organiser in America would like to ban the Exchange French amongst other rewrites of the Laws of Chess

The tournament rules don't ban the Exchange French.

Have another read.

[Roger de Coverly]

The tournament rules don't ban the Exchange French.

Surely that is the intent, along with Qe2 in the Petroff and other Hoovering systems?

The TD can deem that players are not making a serious effort to play a real game.

and

If the two players play an intentionally lifeless opening with the object of steering the game towards a dead draw as soon as possible. For example, playing the exchange French defense and immediately trading off all the pieces is not acceptable.

I agree it's not very exciting chess, to trade everything off except perhaps a pair of Rooks. But if you suspect your opponent of being weak in endings, it is or should be a valid way of playing for a win.

Arbiters have pushed for sudden death time controls to be replaced by increments, so as to remove the responsibility for judging play under 10.2 and its sucessor. You really wouldn't want to give them power to decide that a particular opening was too boring to be allowed.

[Geoff Chandler]

It reads:

"playing the exchange French defense and immediately trading off all the pieces is not acceptable."

You can play the Exchange French as long as you do not immediately start trading off all the pieces.

Nothing wrong with the Exchange French. Good move. Loads of attacking ideas and gambits available.
The look on the face of the Black player is worth it as you watch his opening theory dribble out of his earhole.

[Roger de Coverly]

You can play the Exchange French as long as you do not immediately start trading off all the pieces.

Nothing wrong with the Exchange French. Good move. Loads of attacking ideas and gambits available.

The most active approach for White is the line that Kasparov chose, namely 4 c4. The resulting pawn structures can facilitate piece exchanges as White will allow dxc4 or play exd5 himself. This leaves an IQP structure, but Black can liquidate with c5. It's often a draw in under thirty moves.

[Event "St Albans"] [Site "St Albans"] [Date "2011.04.09"] [Round "2"] [White "de Coverly,RD"] [Black "Roberts,Paul"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "C01"] 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Be7 6.Nf3 O-O 7.Bd3 dxc4 8.Bxc4 Bg4 9.O-O Nbd7 10.h3 Bh5 11.Re1 Nb6 12.Bb3 c5 13.dxc5 Qxd1 14.Bxd1 Bxc5 15.Be3 Bxe3 16.Rxe3 Rfe8 17.Ne5 Bxd1 18.Rxd1 Rad8 19.Rde1 Nfd5 20.Nxd5 Nxd5 21.Re4 f6 22.Nf3 Kf7 23.Kf1 1/2-1/2

[Ian Thompson]

A tournament organiser in America would like to ban the Exchange French amongst other rewrites of the Laws of Chess

From http://millionairechess.com/tournament/ ... -policies/

The TD can deem that players are not making a serious effort to play a real game. For example, some unacceptable situations would be:

If two players on the top boards make a quick draw using some well known theoretical opening that forces a three-fold repetition.
If the two players play an intentionally lifeless opening with the object of steering the game towards a dead draw as soon as possible. For example, playing the exchange French defense and immediately trading off all the pieces is not acceptable.
Continuous repetitions in order to get to the time control will be considered an infraction of the rules.

I wonder what the organisers would make of the following recently played game, had it finished with a draw by repetition at move 11 (particularly as the computer says Black is clearly worse after any move other than taking the Knight):

[Event "5th Classic KO 2013"] [Site "London ENG"] [Date "2013.12.14"] [Round "1.4"] [White "Gelfand, Boris"] [Black "Caruana, Fabiano"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A80"] [WhiteElo "2777"] [BlackElo "2782"] [PlyCount "85"] [EventDate "2013.12.14"] 1. d4 f5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bg5 d5 4. e3 e6 5. Nf3 c5 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Bxf6 gxf6 8. Ne5 h5 (8... fxe5 9. Qh5+ Ke7 10. Qg5+ Ke8 11. Qh5+) 9. Ng6 Rh7 10. Nxf8 Kxf8 11. O-O Nc6 12. dxc5 Qe7 13. Bxc6 Bxc6 14. b4 b6 15. Ne2 bxc5 16. Nf4 Kf7 17. bxc5 Rg8 18. Qd3 Rhg7 19. g3 Qxc5 20. Nxh5 Rh7 21. Nf4 Bb5 22. c4 Bxc4 23. Rfc1 Rc8 24. Qc2 Qc6 25. Rab1 Kg8 26. Qd2 Rhc7 27. Rb2 e5 28. Ng2 Qe6 29. Rbc2 Rh7 30. f4 Kf7 31. Qb4 Rch8 32. Nh4 exf4 33. Qb7+ Kg8 34. Qb8+ Kf7 35. Qc7+ Ke8 36. Qb8+ Kd7 37. Qxa7+ Kc6 38. Rxc4+ dxc4 39. Qa6+ Kd7 40. Rd1+ Ke7 41. Qb7+ Ke8 42. Qb8+ Kf7 43. Qc7+ 1-0

[Jonathan Bryant]

The most active approach for White is the line that Kasparov chose …

As a point of order (OK, pedantry) I don't think he did.


As for this tournament, I wouldn't pay £10 to enter an event with rules as quoted above let alone £1,000. Mind you, I can't imagine what the rules would have to be for me to actually pay that much for a chess event.

[Roger de Coverly]

I wonder what the organisers would make of the following recently played game, had it finished with a draw by repetition at move 11 (particularly as the computer says Black is clearly worse after any move other than taking the Knight):

It appears to be a new discovery or new use by Gelfand, as he played Be2 instead of taking on f6 against Ivanchuk in the World Blitz of 2012.

Presumably OK as a new idea, but if played once in a high profile game, even if only in the notes, does that make it "well known" ?

[Geoff Chandler]

"The most active approach for White is the line that Kasparov chose..."
Kasparov played 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bd3 v Korchnoi.

But we should not be talking about Kasparov games thinking we can suddenly play like him.
At the lower levels, our level. Black wins more than White in the Exchange French.

rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/8/3p4/3P4/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 4

That is because White is in zuggers and any plan White adopts Black can counter it.
The most active approach is not the best policy here.
We gambit the first move advantage. 4.Be2 will do it.
Then play the game as though we were Black and counteract their plan.

Of course Black can answer 4...Be7 and play the: 'You Think of Something to do Defence'.
This is good chess. You have to play doing nothing moves waiting for him to crack.
The first one to think of something to do losses.

[Roger de Coverly]

As a point of order (OK, pedantry) I don't think he did.

There's this game which transposes
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1553571

It must have got some publicity as it was around that time, that I started playing it. Perhaps he suggested it in an annotation.

My stats in standard and rapid were P37 w13 D17 L7.

I'm regarding it now as only a reserve weapon as my front line approach has recently scored 10 7 2 1 and the 1 was only because I blundered after neglecting to win my opponent's queen for next to nothing. But I do seem to have seen a lot of the French, people hoping for a quiet life in the Exchange perhaps?

[Jonathan Bryant]

As a point of order (OK, pedantry) I don't think he did.

There's this game which transposes
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1553571

Oh, playing c2-c4 after Nf3 Bd6 is certainly a standard line - but it's not at all the same thing as playing c2-c4 on move 4. The point is that after Black has played his bishop to d6 White argues that he's gained something in that in the (potential) IQP set ups it would rather be on b4 or e7.

It is the existence of such nuances that makes the French Exchange such a fascinating and vibrant opening.

Morphy also favoured the French exchange, of course.

[Joey Stewart]

The exchange french is an advantageous opening for white - black players hate to see all their hacking play brought to an immediate halt and usually respond negatively to it, ending in some sort of snide comment about white was not even trying to win, usually after they have lost!

[Matt Mackenzie]

As already mentioned, Black has a good score against it in master play - though that is partly through weaker players essaying it hoping for a draw.

[Joey Stewart]

Yeah, probably the same as such lines as the c3 Sicilian or exchange Slav (if you thought the French was bad this is ten times worse). Both are OK'ish openings but would be employed for drawing purposes and so rarely played to their full potential so the stats look bad for them.