Greg asks:
When seeking to learn an opening, of what value is it to obtain material focused on the opening from the opponent’s view. For example, if I wish to play the French Defense, is it useful to study “anti-French” books?
Hi Greg,
The danger with many opening books, is that they are simply not objective. If you have a book for instance called: “How to win with the French”, then you can bet the author is choosing and describing the material in such a way that the inevitable conclusion must be that the French is a very good opening.
Although this does not hold true for every opening book out there, it is something to keep in the back of your mind. Therefore, as a system of checks and balances, it does make a lot of sense to study what White can do in turn to take the French apart. So books that show readers how to do that (“How to beat the French.”) are very useful to study as well.
If you do, you will benefit, because you’ll have a more objective and realistic view on the French, its possibilities and impossibilities, and the risks you can take.
By the way, I’m interested: are you contemplating to play the 3…Bb4 or 3…Nf6 lines against 3.Nc3?
Au revoir!
Waldemar,
Speaking French
Thank you for replying to my question! This notion was prompted by my purchase of Yelena Dembo’s “Fighting the Anti-King’s Indians” because it contains suggestions for Black against a couple of opening systems I play as White. I thought that comparing her ideas with those of the openings in question would be interesting. Turns out that my instinct was okay.
Actually, I’ve been looking at the “Fort Knox Defense” against 3. Nc3 and 3. Nd2. One of my wishes in openings is to try to “take control” of what’s going on as soon as I can by limiting my opponent’s choices. Playing 3…dxe4; 4. Nxe4, Bd7, while considered inferior by many sources, is presented favorably (as you mention) by Neil McDonald in “How to Play Against 1. e4.” I know that White has a number of decent choices against this, but there’s not so much theory to know. 🙂