do any e4 openings avoid the french defense?

I assume the answer is "no," and an e4 player inescapably gets pulled into a French game if an opponent so desires.  Is this the case?

The exchange variation is the most common anti-French:

1.e4 e6, 2.d4 d5, 3.exd4 exd4

Beside the name (indeed "Exchange Variation of the French") it has nothing in common with all the other more ambitious ways to face this defence, but it is also a lot less fun to play, imho.

The most fun variations are those following 3.Nc3, i.e. Classical, Winawer and, to a lesser extent, Rubinstein (still, just my humble opinion).

Moves that French players might not want to see:

Playable? The French is playable. The anti-Frenches are playable. Just about anything is playable as long as you don't go against players way out of your league. In the long run, though, you'd want to study the French, even a little, to gain some positional and strategic understanding of the positions (particularly pawn-chain and IQP ideas.)

Chigorin used to play 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 which eventually leads to a KIA setup. The reason it works well against French (or Sicilian with e6) is that white can push the pawn to e5 which prepares for the kingside attack. This pawn makes defence harder (no Nf6 so h7 can be defended with passive Nf8 or weakening g6, both being not much favourable for black)

Exchange French is worth trying when you are satisfied with a draw. The very reason I switched from French to Sicilian was I hated the boring symmetrical games in Exchange. If you play this many times against one opponent chances are s/he is going to stop playing French against you 

Dr. Gunther Beikert vs Heiko Machelett

BL 0708 Erfurter SK - Hamburger SK 2007  ·  French Defense: La Bourdonnais Variation 

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1502187

I don't think that playing 2.Qe2 with intentions of a KIA makes much sense. I play KIA against the French and the French Sicilian and I do prefer an early Qe2 to Nbd2 but it only really makes sense if your opposition plays d5 at some point which isn't a given. If you commit to Qe2 early and then your opponent plays d6 your Queen just looks silly on e2 - you have virtually wasted a move IMO. Perhaps I am being short sighted but it certainly doesn't appear to be an ideal move order.

As for the exhcnage variation, I have never played it myself and I most certainly never will. It's statistics are horrendous, if you want to avoid the main French lines this is not the way to go about it, it doesn't take a genius to see that White has no opening edge here at all, what a waste.

I also can't agree with dzikus's asumption that because he didn't like the Black side of the French exchange others also don't. I can't think of a better reason to consider learning to play the French...

How to start loving french with white:

• learn how to win the endgame nd4 versus bd7
• Learn how to mate with a pawn on f6
• (in botwinnik) learn that ng5-h3-f4-h5-f6 (or nh4-g2-e3-g4-f6) is always a good plan
• (in botwinnik) learn that development is not everything but the bishoppair is
• Replay every french game where Nigel Short was white

once you have done that you will become a french slaughterer.

These two games are by no means perfect, and I should have won them both rather than drawing the first one, but this Web page ought to show you why I don't play the French any more, and how I slapped my opponent silly both times here with White.

http://www.ncchess.org/wordpress/2012/02/deja-vu/#more-1486

This comes from someone that's a "former" French Player (1996 - 2007) and "former" e4 player (Various times, but not since early 2012, and refuse to go back).

Only ways I end up in a French now are via 1.d4 e6 2.e4 as White and 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 e6 4.e4 Bb4 (MacCutcheon Variation) as Black.

The French is not scary, and can be mauled pretty easily as shown in the two games that the link above leads to.

I find the Winawer a pleasure to play against, with the poisoned pawn. Just yesterday I demolished a 1900 in a friendly OTB game.

But imo the 3...Nf6 variation is much more solid. I've always gone for 4.e5 and, if they don't play the variation with ...Qb6 (say they simply play ...Be7) I've never managed to get any advantage out of the opening.

My main issue is when they play f6 breaking down my centre. Then their "bad" bishop becomes really useful in holding their pawn chain base at e6 and they have the open f-file.

I just don't see how white can have an advantage in those positions.

o.O

I was going to make a joke on that combined with his country, but figured I'd get in trouble.

Why is my o.O italicized?

You can play the KIA. But I think the main line french defence (3. Nc3) gives quite good position for white. The winaver is good to play against, and you still have choice after Nf6 to play e5 or the classical variation. Don't be afraid of french defence, you will have learn how to play closed positions as well.

I wanted to ask you if you have any sample game with it.

While it's clear to me that the knight is superior, how to actually win can be a bit tricky.

What's the plan, penetrating with the king on the dark squares?

I think the Nd4 Bd7 endgame is not something you are actually going to see in Grandmaster practice. However, there is this passive Stenitiz variation:

Black's next move will prevent Bb5 trading into the named endgame. The knight on d4 should give White a small, but stable advantage.

As a lover of the French, I have faced and play as White:

Thanks for that, but even if black accepted the bad trade:

How is white supposed to win this? It seems drawish because I don't see any way to make progresses without breaking his central chain that would unleash his bishop.

Many people see the passive bishop and think that black must be worse, but black is no worse at all if white doesn't have a winning plan.

plutonia the problem is the c pawn.. if it where gone im pretty sure white would have easy win, but i believe its still winning. just the details are not so easy to figure out for me

just of the top of my head, in realiety im just waiting for someone deeply analysing the position and tell us the deep truth