The Chess Mind

Bill Vallicella comments, in response to my post If I Want to be a Role Model, I'd Better Change My Openings:

Nice post, Dennis. I beat a kid at the U. S. Open last night who responded to my French defense with 2. Qe2. It got me out of the book, but other than that it leaves something to be desired even with the KIng bishop fianchetto. Any thoughts?

Of course! On the assumption that Bill also wants to know what those thoughts are, I'll continue. First, it's actually an old and relatively common sideline. The variation was invented (or discovered, if you prefer) by late 19th-early 20th century Russian great Mikhail Chigorin, who first employed it in his drawn 1893 St. Petersburg match with Siegbert Tarrasch. The idea is to prevent Black's fundamental French idea of ...d5, as 2...d5 3.exd5 forces 3...Qxd5, leaving Black a rather passive structure. Black can prepare an eventual ...d5 by placing a piece on e7, but the most common continuation for each side runs like this:

1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 c5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.g3 g6 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.O-O Nge7 7.c3 O-O 8.d3 d6

8...d5 is also possible, but allows White a good King's Indian Attack position after 9.e5. After 8...d6, Black has a very solid, flexible position, and for this reason 2.Qe2 isn't particularly popular.

But is it junk? Is this the sort of opening, or more precisely, an opening exemplifying the sort of win-on-the-cheap attitude I railed against? Probably not. The Chigorin variation doesn't offer White any easy, trappy winning lines. To win, White will have to play a full-blooded game; if anything, the more popular lines give White more opportunities for a quick win than this variation!

But lines like 2.Qe2 have their virtues; I'll offer three. First, they are labor-saving devices. To properly play the main lines of the French requires a reasonably substantial commitment of time and energy, and takes a while even for those willing to spend the time to do it right. Second, the main lines are more likely to be the opponent's "home turf", so even if one spends a good deal of time on the main lines, it still may not negate the depth of the opponent's preparation and understanding. So a related third point is that if the sideline is fundamentally sound and gives you a position you like, then you may achieve a psychological and a practical edge by playing it. (Check out my post What Do All Those Crazy Symbols Really Mean?)

In sum, while I think there are good reasons to study main lines, there is a place in a responsible player's repertoire for variations that, though somewhat off the beaten track, are fundamentally sound.