'Refuting The Winawer'

Hi everybody! 

I know this is a weird question that probably doesn't even have an answer but I'd love to hear some opinions.

I've noticed (watching the US open among the tournaments I have personally attended) that the French defense is gaining popularity rapidly!  In a way it makes sense, it's imbalanced, complex, gives black great chances to win in some variations and great chances to draw in others (should that be what they want) ... and most of all it is VERY versatile, allowing players to cut back on the theory they must learn.  

What I've noticed is that the Winawer variation (1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4) has become incredibly popular.  Personally, I've had such a hard time with the line that I've switched to the Tarrash variation (3. Nd2).

At the same time the line fell out of favour at the top levels for one reason or another, I'd love to know what that reason is.

And so my question is this:  How do you handle the Winawer?

I am pretty sure there is a line in the poisoned pawn variation that gives White an edge.  But I also have a tough time facing the Winawer.  It just annoys me SO much.  So I am even thinking of trying an exchange variation with an early c4 to give me some dynamic chances.

Hi Mat,

Much greater players than you or I have asked this question in the past. Most specifically World Champion R.J. Fischer, who was supposedly uncomfortable in the lines beginning with 3.Nc3. Despite this, a quick database search does not entirely support this supposition:

of the 65 times Fischer faced the option of allowing the Winawer, according to Chessbase megadatabase, he played the line 1.e4 e6 2.d4 60 times. It is often written that he would avoid this altogether with the King's Indian attack with 2.d3, but stats to do not bear that out. He played 2.d3 just 4 times of those 65 encounters, albeit with a perfect score! Of course the question of whether Chessbase's database on Fischer is complete comes into question here.

Thus Fischer played 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 56 out of 57 possible times with just a single outing for the Tarrasch variation (3.Nd2). Multiplicative probability means Fischer allowed the Winawer (60/65) * (56/57)  = 91% of the time. However, we have to take into account if Fischer knew his opponent would even play such a line, as he did prepare at a very high level.

Allowing the Winawer all the time suggests practically no fear of it, however it doesn't suggest that Fischer handled it as well as he did other openings. in fact, looking once again at the statistics, we see that Fischer might not have been performing up to par against this line

3...Bb4  34 games   44.1% Black score 2660 rating average 2719 perf average

3...Nf6   17 games 26.5% Black score 2640 rating average 2583 perf average

3...dxe4  3 games  16.7% Black score           no rating data.

Take the data regarding ELO with the biggest grain of salt possible as there is quite literally 3 rated games that Fischer had an ELO for of the 65 in question, the rest in Chessbase had no ratings (was this before ELO came into play?). But do note the percentages. Surely this is an area where Black had good chances against a top level player with 3...Bb4.

I think the conclusion is actually quite obvious. 3.Nc3 is something Fischer's home analysis suggested must be best, but his practical results couldn't always bear out his homework findings.

Thus the Winawer is an excellent practical weapon which can cause problems for prince and pauper alike.

mavros

Wow you've done your research!  I had noticed Fischer played into that line (despite not wanting to it seemed) quite regularly.  I personally feel that Nd2 and the Tarrash is a bit of a concession (although the knight may be better on b3 and then d4 in the common IQP positions anyways) but at the same time practicality demands that avoiding your opponents preparation is key (a rule my 'style' forces me to break :P). 

Anyways I've done a little bit of research myself since I posted this earlier and it seems that white is almost forced to 'weather the storm' in mainline Winawers, although patient play is almost enough to force the line (one that my own theoretical mind considers dubious) to implode.  I've seen several games where, despite playing perfectly 'normal' moves, black runs out of useful play on the queenside and then dies on the kingside.  I'll have to put some serious thought into specific lines before I decide whether to stick to the Tarrasch or go back to the Winawer.  Whatever the case I've recently decided to completely abstain from dubious (or even unpopular :P) lines thanks to a few scary results in both correspondence and tournament play lately.

hmm... yeah prolly the Tarrasch (once I figure out how to spell it :P)..

-matt

I resign.

DL

Why not just play 7...0-0 instead of ...Qc7? I think it's sounder and black gets good chances, it's just not quite as wild.

Hey Mat,

Some more interesting stuff on Fischer and the French,

After Fischer played 1e4, here are the percentages his opponents scored on various openings. This was completed by doing a player repertoire/dossier on chessbase.

1...e5   188games    22.6%Black score   2588rating avg b  2569  perf avg b

1...c5    178games   25.8%Black score  2609rating avg b   2588  perf avg b

1...e6     65games    34.6%Black score   2646rating avg b  2650 perf avg b

1...c6      49games    26.5%Black score      not enough rating data

1...d5      11games     22.7%Black score     not enough rating data

1...d6       9games     22.2%Black score      not enough rating data

1...Nf6      8games      18.8%Black score     not enough rating data

1...g6         8games       6.3%Black score     not enough rating data

1...Nc6       3games       16.7%Black score    not enough rating data

Also, if you dont like the Tarrasch based on it being some kind of concession, have a quick look at what Garry Kasparov, arguably the strongest player of all time AND the best prepared of all time, plays against the French:

After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 Garry would play

3.Nc3    26 games  71.2%WhiteScore   2819White rating avg 2838 white perf

3.Nd2    22 games  90.9%WhiteScore  2809 White rating avg 2881 white perf

3.exd5  10 games  55.0%White Score  2788White rating avg  2557 white perf

3.d3      2games 100.0%White Score Not enough rating data

Obviously the Tarrasch performed exceptionally well for Garry, one of the most well prepared players of all time and a natural attacking player.Note how it was not clear which move he favoured of Nc3 and Nd2, but it was clear which one gave his opponents the most problems.

I would bring Karpov's stats in to the mix, but they should be filtered to when he was a serious player and was performing well (eg pre1990) past that he has been kind of lax.

Mavros

There was a very interesting reperotoire I got from chesspublishing.com.  When I can get a hold of it I will show you some of the main ideas and games to look at.  It is actually an exchange winawer.  But, it is pretty fun to play and many winawer players probably haven't run into it(played well) to often.

I'm a huge advocate of the French and it is my primary weapon against 1.e4 and has been for some time.  As for reading material:  Watson has two books out right now that should cover just about everything:  Play the French (3rd ed.) and Dangerous Weapons -- I own both and have studied them more than most of the other books I own (sadly, I become obsessed from time to time).

As to the thread topic, I find (as a played of the black pieces) that after

1. e4, e6

2. d4, d5

3. Nc3, Bb4

4. Qg4!? is quite tough to meet.  This is one of Watson's recomendations in "Dangerous Weapons".  He says and I have found that I have to play ultra-precisely (as Black) against most who use this to keep it together. 

On this siteI primarily face this against 1600+ players who have some adequate book knowledge.  So given that according to the USCF, I'm an A-class player, and on here I swing between 1750 and 1900, I'm not a pushover, so I think this is a good choice to avoid the well-trodden poisoned pawn or much slower (though no less well trodden) path of

4. e5, c5

5. Nf3

Enjoy and good luck!  PM me for a copy of "Dangerous Weapons - French".

ZV

I'm a pretty big employer of the French Defense - it was my main defense to 1.e4 before I switched to the Closed Ruy about a week ago. The Winawer French, in particular, feels like an improved Nimzo in that Black has the ability to play c5-c4.

The lines that annoy me the most are the ones where White does not play a3, and the question of position closure remains up in the air. But then again, I never really get the opportunity to play the Winawer French, since nearly 80% of my 1.e4 e6 games have produced the Exchange variation.

at what point

after BB4 then play a3 BxC3 bxc3 DxE4 Qg4 i might by wrong but fork if xG7 Rg8 so dont take xG7 then try xe4 if Nf6 after Qg4 then Ne2

Interesting ideas but I was primarily looking for the best of the 'mainlines' ... strange deviants are almost always innacurate (refuting them OTB is another matter, as I've been shown a few times).

I suggest you go out and buy Khalifman's "Opening Repertoire For White According to Anand Volume 7" as it deals exclusively with the winawer. 

OR!

Rustan Khazimzhanov's "Beating the French vol 1" DVD from chessbase deals only with the winawer, and will probably be a bit more explanatory than Khalifman. I have the whole Repertoire for White According to Kramnik series and I can tell you that the theory is excellent but the explanations are slim.

Interesting. 

Ironically enough, I've done some heavy duty personal research as well as some work exploring anand/kasparov's opening repertoires... found quite a bit.  Enough to make this thread outdated :P.  But it keeps coming back to life ... Volume 7... thanks!

Don't forget Khazhimzhanov!

Here's a sample clip!

http://www.chessbase.com/shopd/wmv/Kasimdzhanov-BeatingtheFrenchVol1.wmv

 Personally I have found the khalifman books perfectly understandable.  It does take some hard work.  But, personally I find the work that I have to do in these types of books is the part that makes my game improve the most.

The saying you get out what you put into it really rings true here. 

Oh sure Khalifman books are absolutely amazing, but if you're just starting out with an opening I would recommend something more general and basic (ala starting out series OR chess explained series) to get the basic ideas down before moving on to the theoretical tombs. 

 Ah yes, of course-point taken. 

Although, my understanding was the op was farther along in his chess life than the starting out books. 

and I am really going to have to get off my butt and show some demonstrative games of the exchange winawer.  They really are fun and instructive.