Why would anyone play the French defense?

The title of this post isn't meant to be invective, but I'll admit that the French defense baffles me. Its most obvious feature is that Black's Queen's bishop is locked out for most of the game, and I don't see what the opening has to offer in compensation for this defect. 

Many strong players use the French regularly and with good results, so I don't doubt that it is a fine opening. But intuitively I can't see what 1...e6 has to offer that makes it a competitor to the Sicilian or the King's pawn game. I'd appreciate any insight from all you francophiles out there.

It's also boring.

They don't know stronger moves.

They want the opponent to underestimate them and then beat him. The Sicilian is stronger, but they can't play it.

Lots of players don't know what to do in closed positions, so it is an advantage. The second advantage is that basically you need to do the same thing against any setup of white. Attack the center pawns!
And it hasn't got too much lines.  

By the way, there are opening lines in the QG where white plays e3, closing the dark squared bishop. So black doesn't do anything special.

That bishop is just temporarily locked, it will join the game later. 
 

people like to play the french defense, because they love being tortured. They some how get a sick turn on, by the fact that there slowly being squeezed to death. If you ask me, I really don't understand why people play this sad excuse of a opening. Why play 1...e6?? when you can play 1...e5!! 

IMHO the Caro-Kann provides the advantage of the French--enticing White to play a closed game--without the disadvantage of the locked in Bishop. Both systems work because White does not know how to play a closed position. When playing White against both the French and the Caro one should play an open variation.  

Yeah, Korchnoi used the French because he wasn't good enough to play the Sicilian

It bugs the hell out of e4 players and it's actually a good shot at taking over the initiative. Good enough reasons.

Some of us also play it because we like rock-solid positions (when we can get them) despite the frequent price of having a  "bad" QB hemmed in by pawns on e6 and d5. BTW all Single KP Openings are theoretically considered to lead to  "semi-open" positions which differentiates them from the Double KP Openings (classified as "open" games) or Single QP Openings (which are classified as leading to "closed" positions aside from all the exceptions of course)

What's really important here IMHO isn't whether or not you like/dislike or play/don't play any particular opening but whether or not you can figure out (or teach yourself) the basic concepts behind openings - because without that knowledge it really doesn't matter what openings you play. Somehow I don't think that asking total strangers for feedback has been very successful so far (ie "it's boring" or my fave "the blocked in bishop is irrelevant"). Even if you don't like the FD you may still have to face it as White so it might help to learn on your own why your opponent is playing a certain opening and what they expect to gain by doing so

I play it because it frequently leads to sharp, unbalanced positions, where I have good chances to play for a win, without having to deal with the "pure tactics" nature of most Sicilian variations. Just check out some of Korchnoi's games with the French:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?yearcomp=exactly&year=&playercomp=black&pid=15866&player=&pid2=&player2=&movescomp=exactly&moves=&opening=&eco=C19&result=

Interesting comments so far. The FD is a fighting defense. Imho, it's boring reputation can be traced to the exchange variation when White plays 3.exd5. Black is not totally guilt free in the inferior selection blame game because 3...dxe4 is almost as bad as the exchange variation. The Advance and the Tarrasch lead to rich chess struggles in the center, opposite wings, the IQP, the whole 9 yards. The Winawer is a sharp, tactical shoot out that most White players avoid, akin to the anti Sicilian, open Sicilian choice by White. White's declination of the Winawer, to me, shows what a minefield it really is. Just yesterday, Ivanchuk played the French in a must win situation and scored the point in fine style. Ironically, his LSB was the monster piece that delivered the coupe de grace, lol.

I have only played the French a few times and with the view of learning how to meet it with the White pieces. That being said, it does have a good mix of solid and aggressive lines. I really would play some of the Stenitiz variation positions with both colors if I was not enamored with the open game and didn't give the Caro-Kahn priority.

I don't even know what the French defence is so this will be just as educational for me as you fdotv, I always prefer to try my best to understand the few moves of an opening sequence (~7/8 moves) and focus on my blunders that arise from it but one opening at a time. Though perhaps instead of titled players making irrelevant and useless comments they could better use the air they breath in to actually contribute something positive and help clear up the inquiry.

Seeing as though we are amateur players and many of us just play for recreational purposes and in our spare time, it would make sense for us to question as to how black would eventually develop that light squared bishop due to basic opening rules "develop your minor pieces as fast possible and set up a strong platform". Though after a short conversation with a higher rated member, I was informed the LSB is activated once black carves out a strong attacking platform on the queens side of the board... So playing e6 d5 attempts to set up an eventual c5 or f6 to free up the LSB after some careful pawn exchanges in the centre with white. Some of the mainlines for the French seem to play 3. Nf6 then 4.Nfd7 which itself also helps set up c5. According to wikipedia the LSB isn't necessarily required as of yet in the opening moves hence activation of the bishop is not priority but can come into play in the end game. I'm hoping some other members can post some French defence games so we can see how it is developed and it if needs to be developed early in the game or later.

i used to play the French Defense.  I liked the Tarrasch variation

for me its a great counter attacking system and i love the way it targets whites pawns on a good day they fall like leaves great for when you tire of facing a richter rauser looks after the f7 pawn (big plus in my book)which is a good target for white in e4 e5 games and isnttoo hard to learn esp Tarrasch variation most white players i face after e4 e6 d4 d5 now take on d to avoid the french an idea formulated by Alekhine i believe and who can argue with  his  chess so to sum up its full of attacking ideas keeps the pawn structure around your king solid and is able to expand when the time is right

With 1.e4, White begins an assault upon Black's weak f7. With 1...e6, Black forces White to find another strategic objective.

Here is another example why the french blows. No respect kids, no respect! If one of you frenchies want to learn a real opening, come talk to me. I'll be busy studying the poisoned pawn najdorf sicilian, a mans opening.  Heres the link http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/delirious-najdorf

Black's move 7 is an inaccuracy. Move 9 is an error. And Black's move 10 demonstrates that he fails to understand the opening.

 

I believe they call this a strawman argument--intentionally choosing a weak example of the French Defense to show that it is refuted.

There is nothing wrong with the french defense and its one of the most popular responses to 1 e4  for a reason ... I have been playing the french for more than 2 decades ( from both sides ) with very respectable results .