Why would White play the exchange varioation in the French defence?

I recently started playing a game as Black and replied with the French defence.

My opponent chose to exchange the pawns very rapidly. So why would in general a White player do this? Isn't this commonly excepted in this too early stage as a possible draw? 

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.exd5 exd5 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.a3 Ba5 7.Nge2 Nge7 8.O-O Bf5

It's typical play by those under 1600.  They cannot handle tension.  They cannot handle closed positions.  They think it will "bore" the French player.

Instead, their lazy attitude toward chess and inability to understand tension and closed positions instead just makes the game very easy for Black to equalize.  Any MATURE chess player ought to LOVE facing the Exchange.  Immature French players that see the Exchange as "boring" and aren't happy with easily equalizing the position clearly don't understand what chess really is all about!

When we are stronger than our opponents we don't want to play [in many cases]

the French exchange variant  because we are more afraid to make a draw.

When we are weaker than our opponents we can be more inclined to play the French exchange variant because we seek above all not to lose.

When we look at the position we see that it is open and symmetrical with one tempo more for White. There is no logical and rational reason to believe that White is playing a losing position.

Now as Black by a book, video, database, chess lesson etc. we can have plenty of information or elements to know how to play or have strategic ideas etc. on the other variants so in a way the other variants can be less problematic (in simplified, when White plays French exchange variant, "he is sure" that he is not going to get beaten because of the knowledge of the opening, the theory etc. and so he plays in a way on equal terms against Black)   

In addition to this, IM Josua Waitzkin beat (as White) a lot of strong players ( 2235, 2325, 2340, 2345, 2420, 2445 etc.). Gary Kasparov could have beaten GM (as White) and in Youtbe video Banter Blitz cup- Etienne Bacrot vs Mateusz Bartel we can see GM Bacrot win (as White) with  French exchange variant aginst a GM +2600.  

But if you actually study the Exchange, and not just assume it's drawish, you, as the higher rated player (let's say, 2000) still ought to beat the 1700 player as he will surely make a middlegame or endgame mistake.

It requires flexibility.  Knowing when to play moves like ...c5, leading to an IQP, and when not to.  Knowing your minor piece endings IN DEPTH.  Very common endgames in the Exchange French include N vs N, N vs B, B vs B (Same color), B vs B (Opposite color), NN vs NN, and NN vs NB.

It's that simple!  Don't try to force the win.  Most your wins in the Exchange French will be lengthy, like over 50 moves, because it's often about grinding out a slightly better endgame because of some positional mistake by lower-rated White.  A weak square or a weak pawn that leads to a lengthy winning ending for Black.

If you are "afraid" he or she will draw, you aren't approaching the French properly!

It's funny -- I think of it exactly the opposite way around.  I'm about 1600 OTB, and at the moment, I always play 3. Nc3.  Against strong players, I'm happy to keep doing so because I know that in the ensuing mess, I can sometimes knock off an 1800 or 1900 player.

On the other hand, a few weeks ago, I lost to a 1100-rated nine-year-old who just flat out-calculated me in a tricky Winawer. Good for her and all that, but it just seemed so avoidable on my end, playing directly into her strengths.  And, espeically in a rapid game (which this was), it introduces a lot of room for blundering that can just be avoided. I suspect that if I'd gone for the exchange variation and headed for an endgame, I'd have won it nine and a half times out of ten.  Or even some fairly solid line of the Advance variation.

So I may need to change my approach for weaker opponents, especially kids.  Since my daughter has taken up chess, over the last year or so, I'm now playing a lot of tournaments with her that feature lots of kids and am starting to think I really need to have an "anti-kids" repertoire consisting of things like the Exchange French (as White) and the Petroff (as black).  

Am I alone in thinking about it that way?  I want no part of playing "safe" against stronger players (that never works), but against weaker ones, discretion may be the better part of valor.

french is very annoying to meet. Black seems to get the locked/counterattacking/crooked game he wants no matter which supposedly advantageous line white is recommended to play. The radical solution of some players is to forego virtually all of white's opening advantage and play a clean even game. At least there black shoudnt be any MORE comfortable in the position than white.

but you also cant think you defanged black either. They are ways for black to play for asymmetry that give him play in the position. It's no firework but i will take those positions over say an exchange slav anyday.

@1

"So why would in general a White player do this?" ++ To open the e-file and occupy it first.

"Isn't this commonly excepted in this too early stage as a possible draw?"
++ Chess is a draw. The exchange variation has a drawish reputation, but white can play it sharply: Nf3 and Bd3 with a Bxh7+ threat, or positionally: trading the bad bishop Bc1 for the good bishop Bf8 and not trading the good bishop Bf1 for the bad bishop Bc8.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012486

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1693023 

If Black has any clue what he is doing, the Greek Gift Sacrifice should never be even a remote factor in the Exchange French.  Lines where White gets a pawn on e5 and Black often castles early, like the Classical Variation or sometimes the Closed Tarrasch, that is where Black has to watch for the Greek Gift.

After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Nf6 (Best) 5.Bd3, it does not matter if Black goes symmetrical (5...Bd6) or if he goes Uhlmann's route and plays 5...c5, there is no Greek Gift.

I've played the French Exchange as white, so I'll just answer why I chose to:

1) I don't care about having a theoretical opening advantage as either color. I just want to get into a middlegame that I think I'll enjoy playing. I'm not strong enough for +0.3 to mean anything. 

2) French players often love to play closed positions and just slowly chip away at white's center. I want to deny my opponent their main idea and steer the game towards something more open and potentially less comfortable for them. 

3) I can decide to play an imbalanced position that's more fun (to me) later on. If I want to, I can castle on opposite sides for a wild double-edged attacking game. I also enjoy playing with the isolated queen's pawn (IQP) after c4. I know it's not in the best theoretical state, but so what? Knowing some of the motifs in that pawn structure will help to win more games than just knowing that a position is slightly better for white on paper. Chess is a draw anyways.

4) I don't want to fall into black's opening prep. Imagine trying to put in the effort to keep that elusive +0.3 advantage only to fall into a trap in some obscure Winawer line. There are only so many hours in the day and I'd rather be working on anything else to improve my chess. Rote memorization sucks to me, and is only a band-aid solution for any other weaknesses in my play.

It's not certainly not the right choice for everyone, but those were my reasons for playing it at the time. Of course, if someone likes the +0.3 positions more, then they should play that instead. It's a game after all, so it should be fun.

@10

"I don't care about having a theoretical opening advantage as either color." ++ There is none.

"I'm not strong enough for +0.3 to mean anything." ++ It only means a draw.

"steer the game towards something more open and potentially less comfortable for them." OK

"Chess is a draw anyways." ++ Yes

"I don't want to fall into black's opening prep." ++ OK

"I'd rather be working on anything else to improve my chess." ++ Smart

"Rote memorization" ++ is useless

"It's a game after all, so it should be fun." ++ right

@9

"After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Nf6 (Best) "
++ Nimzovich recommended 4...Nge7 to prepare 5...Bf5 trading the bad bishop for the good bishop.

Also 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Nf6
transposes to the Petrov: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5 d6 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 d3 Nf6 6 d4 d5.
Some white players might prefer this,
so the same line does double duty against the Petrov as well as the French.

If you start doing "anti-player techniques" or "cheating techniques" it means that you are not really stronger than your opponent because instead of playing normally you play in a bad way that is only justified by a failure of your opponent.  

Gary Kasparov, Vishy Anand, and Magnus Carlsen are among the top players who have played the Exchange Variation for a win as white against grandmaster opponents.  After 3...exd5 14 pawns and all the pieces are still on the board. There is plenty of scope for play for both sides

Sorry, I do not follow the logic of this at all.  That's a nice-sounding claim, but what does it actually mean?

Unless the 1100 player was someone whose rating just hadn't caught up to her real strength (probably true to an extent, but not to the tune of 500 points -- she didn't dominate the tournament) then, as a 1600 player, I should be, overall, quite a bit stronger.  But that doesn't mean that I'm stronger in all aspects of chess, or that in a game in which we both make mistakes, I might not make the bigger (or later) mistake.  She may -- like many kids -- be roughly my equal in calculating complicated lines in difficult positions.  Or she may get lucky and have me blunder and spot the right refutation. On the other hand, I probably, through sheer experience, have a better sense of how to steer an uncomplicated position to a favorable endgame in which I can grind out a win -- or even an equal endgame which I'm nevertheless likely to win because I understand it better.

I'm not talking about playing in a "bad" way.  I'm just saying that in rapid games against kids, it might not very practical of me to go for that supposed +0.3 advantage that Not_V2 mentioned and risk losing games like the one I mentioned (where I had to invest way too much time in calculating positions that I simply shouldn't have let arise).  Whereas, against older, stronger players (who may be no better calculators than I am but better endgame players), I'm happy to try to get into a fun, messy, complicated position in the 3. Nc3 French that I can sometimes win.

Kasparov himself has played the Exchange Variation and won. Many players hate playing the French positions, and Black usually has at least an edge in experience playing the typical pawn chain structure. The Exchange avoids all that. White won't get more than a minimal advantage,but Black doesn't get the positions he most wants

Thanks for all your answers. Perhaps indeed the exchange variation is a way to avoid a whole lot of theory. Not that I have all this ready and a lot of experience. 

I have been playing some games against the computer with the exchange variation, and they result in some nice, open and fun games.

Ftom what I have seen in chess books that line is classified as the exchange variation of the french defense despite the petroff move order. (playing the Petroff by Swapnil Dhopade, The Petroff by Lasha Janjgava).

It is also interesting to note that Janjgava says "6..d5 transposes into a variation of the french defense that is not particularly frightening for black" His analysis wasn't much more than a footnote. That book was written in 2001. Fast forward to 2020 when Dhopade wrote his book and the french defense line gets a whole chapter. Dhopade's comment on the line is that "it is not considered theoretically critical but it certainly has the right to exist"

I disagree. If you know a player struggles in open positions, you open the position. If they spend all their time playing the Sicilian, play 1. d4. A win is a win, and as long as you get it fairly, you deserve it. In this example, OP lost one game and learned from it. This is a REALLY good way to play chess.