4... Nc6 vs. 4... Qb6 in the French Advance

Hi all,

Recently I started playing the Advance Variation against the French after watching Andrew Martin's Chessbase video covering the tricky 5. Be3.

Obviously, I can't play this against 4... Qb6 since I would hang the b2 pawn.

So I'm wondering if there's a difference between 4... Nc6 and 4... Qb6?

I know 4... Qb6 also leads to some lines with an early light-squared bishop trade, but if Black wants to play the mainline, as far as I can tell they can force me to play it after 5. Nf3 Nc6. Is this an accurate assessment?

Thanks!

Yes, you are correct. I looked at some other forums on the internet and also had a quick look into the database and Qb6 first seems to be more accurate if Black wants to reduce White's options e.g. preventing the Kupreichik with Be3 as you mentioned in OP.

Most of the time when I encountered this in my OTB tournaments people only use this move order to play Bd7-b5. I never saw people play Qb6 first just to transpose back to the mainline with Nc6. Most people play Nc6, Qb6 first.

A friend of mine from the chess club plays this on a regular basis which lead to me looking into this line a bit more. I like Be2 and if Black plays Bb5 you play c4. You only need to study a few lines after which I think the position is in my opinion easier to play for White.

The question is now whether this is relevant from a practical point of view. Most people will play Nc6 anyway. But of course that doesn't mean that this never comes up.

In this case I think it isn't that bad because the french advance can be learnt by knowing some fundamental ideas like the importants of the d4 and e5-squares which don't have to necessarily be controlled by pawns.

This article on the french advance mentions this at the beginning: http://charlottechesscenter.blogspot.com/2017/11/opening-preparation-beating-french-with.html

In general, if you know the most important strategic and tactical ideas of the french advance you will always be able to come up with good moves even if you haven't prepared against a certain move order. If you learn to understand when and why to take away from the center with dxc5 you will easily navigate through the countless of move orders black can play at you (dxc5 is necessary in some positions to prevent your d4-pawn from becoming a weakness ; never allow cxd4 followed by Nf5 if there is no concrete reason for it otherwise you might just lose the d4-pawn)

For common tactical patterns in the advance I can recommend IM Lopez's 7part series on common tactics in the french advance. He covers tactics but also covers the strategic ideas as often they are strongly connected. Note that the specific more orders aren't that important in the video. It's rather the pattern you should remember. Here is the link to the playlist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RVul5235f8&list=PLrTLUmPNfTCLtIc4vfBP_2is3E-7MLHAK

Regardless of whether you play the Kupreichik or a normal French advanced it is good to study the games of experts of the French Advanced to familiarize yourself with the most common middlegame idea. Examples for players that are relevant for the FA are Sveshnikov, Nimzowitsch, Grischuk and Shirov.

The move orders in their games are not that important try to focus on how they treat the middlegame or endgame. Full games are also good to get a full picture of how advantages get converted. You can also study the losses by these players to understand what could go wrong. If you have an annotated games collection with french advanced games than even better, unfortunately I don't know of any. Annotated games are scattered over many books.

This way you gain an understanding of the structure in general regardless of whether you specialize in certain subvariations or not.

Thanks for the thorough reply!

Your suggestion of 6. Be2 Bb5 7. c4 is pretty neat! I just looked into Chessable's Master the French Defence, which recommends this early trade variation, and your line isn't covered, so it seems good to take Black out of book.

Again thank you for the overview of the strategy for White. I play the French as Black (Euwe vs. the Advance), but I didn't know that dxc5 is necessary if Black can play cxd4 and Nf5. This will help my games playing either colour.

I have Sveshnikov's book on the Advance, but I haven't read it yet. I'll make sure to check it out!

You're welcome. Here is an example of the dangers of allowing cxd4 followed by Nf5 for no concrete reason:

Sorry for some reason the board isn't working so I just give the moves.

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bd7 6. Be2 Qb6 7. O-O Nge7

And now the best move is: 8. dxc5!

Why? Let's see what happens if White plays 8. a3 instead which looks natural as White often wants to expand on the queenside:

8. a3? cxd4! Black fixes d4 as a weakness. The root of White's pawn chain is not defended by a pawn anymore making it vulnerable to piece pressure e.g. Qb6, Nc6, Nge7-f5

9. cxd4 Nf5 and the d4-pawn is gone since 10. Be3 would just hang a piece.

We avoid that by playing:

8. dxc5! we avoid the weakness on d4. This looks counterintuitive to capture away from the centre but if you look at the position closely we still have control over the d4 square due to our queen, c3-pawn and f3-knight. Fighting for the d4 and e5 squares doesn't have to necessarily mean that we have to put pawns there and keep them there for all eternity. As described in the abovementioned article we can:

• control the squares by putting our pawns there
• control d4/e5 by putting our pieces there to blockade our opponent's center
• or we can leave the squares open but under the control of our pieces/pawns from afar to make it difficult for Black to advance his central pawns (If black would manage to set his central pawns in motion without any negative consequences he would build up a superior centre which would give him a serious advantage)
• of course a combination of the above is also possible

In our dxc5 example the last case happened as d4 is firmly under our control while the e5-square is occupied by the pawn giving us much more space and causing black some problems in his development as both the knight and bishop compete for the e7-square.

Let's see how the game could continue:

8. dxc5 Qxc5

9. Re1 This is a thematic move. As you can see the fight for the e5/d4-square defines the character of the advanced variation. We put our rook on e5 to anticipate any counterplay (Black wants to fight for these squares as well) against e5 by overprotecting it. We are planning to move our bishop to d3 to enable the rook to protect e5.

9. ...Nf5 A common move played by many players however without a pawn on d4 the knight basically attacks nothing and is therefore more useless compared to the other line where the pawn was still on d4. Advancing the pawn to d4 is out of question for Black due to White's firm control over d4.

10. b4! An important move to gain space on the queenside and increase our control over the dark squares. Black's pieces really lack space here.

10. ...Qb6

11. Nbd2 we want to head over to b3 and eventually to d4 where we apply the second strategy of blockading the d4 square with a knight.

12. ...Be7

13. Bd3 Improving our bishop and increasing our control over e5

14. ...0-0

15. Nb3 we will stop here. White enables the bishop to come to f4 to fortify our e5-pawn which is essential for securing our space advantage and keeping Black's pieces passive.

We have a lot of dangerous ideas and due to our space advantage on both sides we actually also can play on both sides. For example a4-a5 might be an idea to kill off Black's counterplay. Or we could drop back the bishop to b1 and play Qd3 to build up a battery on the b1-h7-diagonal which would threaten checkmate on h7 for example after pushing g4 to cahse the knight away.

Regardless of what plan you will go for always remember that these plans are only possible if you are able to secure your control over d4 and e5. This will help you enourmously because Black has a gazillion move order like Qb6, Bd7 or Qb6, Nc6, Nge7 or Nc6, Nge7 without Qb6 and many many more.

Another motif you should look at is when to trade on f5. This happens a lot when you play variations were you were able to develop the bishop to d3. In these cases ideas like h4-h5 followed by a rook lift with Rh3-g3 become relevant (note this is only possible if we delay castling, this comes up in variations like Nc6, Nge7 or the one with Nc6, Nh6).

There is a lot to learn but the good thing is that the guidelines already help a lot and the GM games give you some ideas for the middlegame. The rest comes through playing a bunch of games through experience.

There are still some new developments if you want to try out something very recent you can try the idea played by Carlsen against Harikrishna. Here is the game:

https://www.365chess.com/game.php?gid=4270402

Lots of room for your own analysis and creativity.

Here an intro video on that new variation by GM Jesse Kraai:

https://youtu.be/X1xu3ft3v_4

Here the analysis by Jesse of the abovementioned game Carlsen - Harikrishna

https://youtu.be/myU31OPHCeE

As you can see even if your opponents avoid the Kupreichik with Be3 you can still get a good game. I think Black really needs a good understanding of the position to avoid getting slowly outplayed because some of the typical maneuvers by Black aren't good.

Have fun exploring the French Advance. I just joined some days ago and can't wait to play more games in the french to gain more experience in this variation.

Take care!

To the OP, yes, what you say is accurate.

In fact, many books now are recommending that if Black's intention is to play the 5...Qb6 line, go ahead and do it on move 4 and follow that up with 5...Nc6 assuming White plays 5.Nf3, and the sole purpose for reversing the two moves is to specifically avoid the 5.Be3 line!

If your intention is to play 5...Bd7 or 5...Nge7 or 5...Nh6, then you have no choice but to play 4...Nc6, but since I myself play the 5...Qb6 line, I play the move 4...Qb6 first and only then 5...Nc6.

So yes, if you think you can rely on just the 5.Be3 line, think again!

The line of play you give is inferior for Black.  If White is going to play Be2 lines, Black should trade on d4 immediately!

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Qb6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Be2 cxd4! 7.cxd4 Nge7 (7...Nh6 used to be the popular move, but now 8.Bxh6 leads to some problems) and now either 8.Nc3 Nf5 9.Na4 or 8.Na3 Nf5 9.Nc2 is necessary.  8.O-O? is a mistake because 8...Nf5 wins at least a pawn for Black.

I know that it is inferior. The point of this example was just to illustrate the dangers for White and the ideas by Black. I could have chosen any variation. It's about the concept. From a theoretical point but in amateur chess you will encounter all kinds of people and understanding the why behind the moves can only be illustrated by using examples where the game went wrong for one side. This makes it clear why certain variations are played and others not at top level.

8. 0-0? I could have chosen as a variation as well to illustrate the dangers of allowing cxd4 and Nf5 for White.

In OTB games I used the plan you mentioned with Na3 and Nc2. The position are more or less equal but I had some good experience with it. Amateur chess isn't about opening theory after all.

That's why my focus was more on the concepts and the specific variation was only a vehicle for me to explain it.

Thx for your addition for the early cxd4.

Great forum. Be aware that 7..Nh6 doesn't allow White's Na3-ideas, and 8.Bxh6 Qxb2 is a mess that Black easily con come out of as a winner.

So White probably has to study the 7..Ne7/h6 8.Nc3 Nf5 9.Na4 wich is interesting and fine for both sides. This was already played in Nimzowitsch-Spielmann, Stockholm 1920.

Thanks all for your great input! I wasn't expecting it after my simple question.

The improved Milner-Barry is definitely a choice I will explore now.

For anyone wondering why I don't want to go into the mainlines as White, as a French player I know most of us are really comfortable in them, so I don't mind granting equality in the eyes of the engines if it poses significant practical problems.

Recently, 8.Bxh6!, allowing ...Qxb2, has actually been giving Black problems.

In fact, the move 7...Nh6 was preferred until this discovery.  Reason being is that Black is slightly better after 8.Nc3 Nf5 9.Na4 Qa5+ 10.Bd2 Bb4 11.Bc3 b5! 12.a3 Bxc3+ 13.Nxc3 b4 14.axb4 Qxb4 =/+.

As a French player myself, 3.Nc3 does not give comfort!  There are many problem lines for Black.  Just many White players do not know them.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3 6.bxc3 Ne7 and now 7.h4 is actually harder to defend than 7.Qg4.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4 5.e5 h6 and while 6.Bd2 has its challenges, 6.Bc1! is giving Black headaches.

This is just a couple, there are others.  3.Nc3 is White's strongest move with 3.e5 second.  Tarrasch is no advantage after 3...c5.  Exchange is nothing either.

Thanks maybe this h4 in the winawer line is worth trying.

I agree. If White is serious about fighting for an advantage prepping 3. Nc3 is the way to go. This was my main choice for a long time in my OTB tournaments (unfortunately there have been only few tournaments during the pandemic, that's why I'm here). I had no problems playing the Alekhine-Chatard (love this variation never had a single boring game in this variation), against the MacCutcheon, rubinstein, Burn etc. I struggled however against the Winawer where I have a really bad score against.

After seeing Magnus Carlsen and Mamedov play the improved Milner Gambit I wanted to try this new idea and a deeper analysis showed some nice ideas for White even Anish Giri had to admit that this gambit is the best and sound version of the Milner-Barry.

In practice, my opponents usually don't really understand the position and go for typical maneuvers like Nge7-f5 (against Ng6 White has the typical motif of playing g3-followed by h4-h5-(h6)) which isn't effective since in most cases there isn't even a pawn on d4.

Against all other move orders I just follow what Grischuk, Shirov play + some own analysis. The good thing is the advanced is pretty straight forward and easy to pick up. If you know what to do against the gazillions of move orders Black can throw at you then the White is fine. The positions might not be always better but having a space advantage is always something and I feel comfortable playing these positions.

From a practical point of view this is way less work and from my OTB and online games so far this has been working great. The closed nature of the position requires a good understanding of what to play for and quite a lot of french players I play against don't understand the subtelties of the structure. Since the french is quite popular and the advanced doesn't give black a bunch of possibilites (e.g. Winawer, Classical, Burn etc) I get the same positions consistently which adds to my experience. The rest is just a normal struggle like in every opening. The better player wins.

I myself play the advance as well, along with the King's Indian Attack sometimes, but not the Milner Barry.  I also play 3.Nc3.  I refuse to play the Tarrasch or Exchange as White.

In the advance, I have had the following position from both sides numerous times:

Not saying the advance is bad, and if YOU understand it better than 3.Nc3, go for it!  I was simply saying that if your sole reasoning for not playing 3.Nc3 is that you think Black is more "comfortable", as in "he gets what he wants", that is not true and should not be a reason to avoid 3.Nc3.  You have to use positive thinking.  What works for you, not what you perceive to tip the apple cart of your opponent psychologically.  Many think the Exchange "annoys" French players. In over 7 years, since playing the lines I play against the exchange, I have NEVER lost a French Exchange in time controls of g/60 or longer - about 30 to 40 Exchange French games as Black in that stretch if you include those that transposed from the Petroff (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d3 Nf6 6.d4 d5).

The only game I lost in an exchange French was a Game in 33 minutes, 40 seconds (Game in 2020 seconds on New Year's Day 2020), and I was actually winning and lost after multiple blunders in severe time trouble, so once again, the opening was a failure for White.  In the rest of the games, about a 50/50 split between wins and draws.

So do not ever base your play on the perceived notion that you may or may not be playing into your opponent's "Comfort Zone".  3.Nc3 is not a comfort zone.  Sure, a winawer or McCutchen may be more thrilling than an Exchange, but I am more comfortable in the Exchange as I already know at move 3 that White has NOTHING!

Well, I don't disagree with you. I don't play the advance because I avoid Nc3. I've been playing Nc3 for most of my life with a little advance variations in between but now that I saw Carlsen's idea I just wanted to try it out. I copy many of Carlsen's variations for example after his world cup victory against fedoseev I started to play 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. c4 which is much rarer played or against 3. ...c5 3. dxc5 e6 4. Qg4. His opponents has some problems despite the positions being okay for black. Now imagine how the average amateur plays. White's position is easier to play due to the space advantage while Black has to resort to obscure and concrete play.

Regarding the exchange I agree with you. I played the french with Black when I started out and actually my score is great against the exchange. People don't realize that even in symmetrical positions both sides have tools at their disposal to play for a win.

I studied the classics a lot for example the game Botvinnik - Szylagyi clearly shows how small details matter in symmetrical positons. Also Kramnik is a player that is worth studying to understand how to deal with symmetrical positions. Learning how to play in these positions is a valuable skill and is not talked about a lot in literature.

Most players play the exchange variation with the wrong mindset. Just sitting there and do nothing is a recipe for desaster, the positions don't draw themselves. Black doesn't even have to castle long in the exchange. Nepo, Giri and recently Firouzja a few days ago at Norway chess showed clearly how careless play actually leads to hopeless and passive positions for White.

Oh for sure I know some lines are pretty scary! But I play the Classical (Winawer seems like too much of a headache), and I go for the Burn Variation after 4. Bg5 because I'm not a big fan of giving up the dark-squared bishop in the French structure.

On that note, MacCutcheon is definitely a sensible choice and I want to add it to my repertoire later on, but I don't understand why anyone would go with 4... Be7 and willingly give up the dark-squared bishop. For me, it just seems like a worse Steinitz for Black.

The Tarrasch is interesting to me since it scores better than 3. Nc3, but I don't know much about it. I'll admit my guilt here and say that I go for the Rubinstein against the Tarrash; since I mostly play online, I play the relatively dubious 4... Nf6!? variation advocated by Levy Rozman (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLH1Yw6skaI&t=1418s&ab_channel=GothamChess).

From the White perspective, I wouldn't be a huge fan of prepping 3. Nc3 just to face the Burn or Steinitz Variations, which I feel are fine and comfortable for Black.

@melvinbluestone Can you show the precise move order? I can't identify the variation in the quote above. Thanks!

Granted, this is a win for Black, but if you are a fan of older games, take a look at what is in my opinion one of my favorite games of all time:  Fischer - Uhlmann, Buenos Aires, 1960.  That ...e3 push on I think move 30 (could be off by 1 one way or the other) is just nasty!

You're correct, I just checked it. It is move 30. Thx for sharing the game. Yes, that is really a fantastic game. Uhlmann was one of the greatest french defense experts of that time. He left this world last year but his brilliant games (not only in the French Defense) will stay in the chess world forever.

Good point! I guess I can still try to play it but there's no way to truly escape the mainline Advance if I intend to add the Kupreichik to my repertoire.