Do you mean as White, or as Black? As Black, I would say it's not so much your choice... As White, I would say "Go for it." French players usually go for a closed position, so opening it up by exchanging would profit Whtie.
French Exchange variation
Sort:
I play the French as Black and am always annoyed when someone takes on e5. If you want to play it as White, castle queenside and pawn storm him!
personally I like this. There may be better play for either side, but it's something to think about.
Mar 31, 2009
0
#5
I think white just knows if black is playing e6 the french he must have some knowledge so white crosses him up and plays the exchange variation (very boring for me as black).
Gonnosuke wrote:
The French Exchange leads to some of the most boring chess imaginable. If aesthetics don't matter then I'll try another angle -- I've never met a French player that feared the Exchange variation. Ever. Most think it's boring but you're not going to throw them off their game the least little bit.
The French Exchange is an opening variation like any other. It is not the most testing continuation versus the French but it does offer White reasonable prospects for a small advantage.
It is virtually the only good way for White to change the basic character of the opening away from traditional French structures. That can be really important because the French is primarily an opening played by devoted specialists who know and love typical French setups.
The keys to this variation are 1) it needs to be studied carefully like any other opening and 2) White needs to play for an advantage. White gets in trouble when he plays to make an early draw by blindly maintaining the symmetrical pawn structure and seeking exchanges instead of pursuing the best moves. That usually ends in trouble because White ends up making a series of small concessions.
The true property of symmetrical postions is not that they are drawish but rather they don't allow much counterplay. If you get in trouble in the Sicilian (with either color) there is always the possibility of creating counterplay on the opposite wing that may restore the balance or at least make it complicated for your opponent. But if you get a worse game in a balanced position you are probably in for an extended period of misery in which you can only defend patiently.
In a game between two properly prepared players of similar strength, the player most likely to gain this sort of advantage should be White.
Of course it often happens in the Exchange French that White 1) is rated about 250 points below his opponent, 2) approaches the game with an incorrect attitude, and 3) thinks the variation just plays itself and makes no serious effort to learn it.
That usually ends about as well as you might expect. It also tends to inflate the egos of some French specialists.
PS: I play lots of "boring" openings. It usually only takes one or two twists in the road and suddenly the game can be very interesting by move 20. I've also played many "exciting" openings where the game was a burned-out shell about four moves beyond the end of standard theory. A game is what the players make of it. The Petroff can be fascinating and the Dutch can lead to a dead draw in 20 moves. The essential nature of an entire game is not fixed after the first three moves.
Gonnosuke wrote: I don't disagree with anything you said but I guess I just don't see the value in changing the essential character of an opening when the new character is just as familiar to your opponent. If the Exchange didn't require any preparation in order to play well I'd understand the case for it but if one has to devote time to learning how to attack the French I think there are other more challenging avenues that will pay higher dividends in the long run. There's certainly a case to be made for avoiding the specialist lines but I think the Exchange variation is so common that it's a distinction without a difference.
In my opinion, time is best spent learning how to properly (or passably? ) take on one of the truly iconic chess openings.
An important advantage of the French Defense is that Black chooses the battlefield and White is stuck with it. I have learned from experience that openings in which I create an elaborate center do not work especially well for me. I like my centers simple and my pieces active.
You cannot really compare the effort required to prepare the Exchange Variation with 3. Nc3 or 3. Nd2. The Rubinstein Variation alone is as much work as 3. exd5 and that is not even a real part of the opening 
.
An important personal consideration is that in constructing a White opening repertoire it is good to have simple effective solutions for uncommon openings. The main part of my preparation time needs to be devoted to the openings that come up all the time--the Queen's Gambit and the Trompowsky 
.
If I played 1. e4 I would probably follow your advice and learn something with more substance. But that is because I am willing to make a serious effort on the important openings and that isn't the right approach for everyone.
I'm thinking of playing the French exchange variation. I know Alexander Alekhine played this move in canada in 1924. Which are the best games from the white side in more modern chess? Did Fischer and Kasparov play this move?
many thanks Martin