Well, the intelligent mind would look for similarities here, what is the decisive factor that gives Black the advantage? I have an idea, because I found this property in my analysis of the Alekhine defense as well. This research is doing fine, by the way.

Black is forced to give the quality only to delay checkmate, he cannot avoid it.

If you want to see a possible continuation, look at page 800 or click here (The World vs Akobian, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:D...

This may be why.

35... Rfd7 36.Rf3 Kg8 37.Rhf2 Rg7 38.Bxg7 Kxg7 39.Rh2 Bg5 40.Rf1 Qd7 41.Qh3 Kg8 42.Rhf2 Qg7 43.Rf7 Rxf7 44.Rxf7 Qh6 45.Qxh6 Bxh6 46.e6 Bf8 47.e7 Bxe7 48.Rxe7 Ng5 49.Ra7 Kf8 50.Rxa6 c5 51.Ra7 cxd4 52.cxd4 Nh3 53.Rf7+ Kg8 54.a6 Ng5 55.Re7 Kf8 56.Rb7 Ne6 57.a7 Kg8 58.a8=Q+ Nf8 59.Rf7 g5 60.Qxf8#

click for larger view

Once we lodged our knight on d6, white had too many threats for black to handle. He could have suffered for 25 more moves as his position crumbled but there would have been no point in prolonging the agony.

Are you tired of the French Defense and its annoying, blocked-up positions? Do you wish the people who invented the French pawn chain were themselves chained up? Well, have I got the solution for you! Here at Monokroussos Labs, Inc., our leading research scientist* came up with the answer this morning in the shower and several seconds of intense thought**.

Ready?

It's 1.e4 e6 2.Be2!!, and after 2...d5 3.exd5! exd5 4.Bf3!

Now, I must distinguish this from two lines which might look similar but are in fact incredibly different. There's 1.e4 e6 2.g3 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Bg2, but this isn't as good. The move g3 is weakening, and now after 4...Nf6 5.Ne2 (if 5.Nf3, what is the bishop doing on g2?) Black has 5...Bg4! The Monokroussos Variation is aimed to prevent this!

Second, 1.e4 e6 2.d4? d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Be2 is not the same either, because Black can profitably develop his light-squared bishop to f5 and fight for the e4 square. In the Monokroussos Variation, White still has the option of d3!

Indeed, our new variation has two principal points. The first is to avoid the gruesome French pawn chain, which has probably caused mass suicides and unprecedented levels of depression worldwide. Second, the aim is to avoid this chain while simultaneously keeping Black's bad bishop bad. Thus we keep g4 under control and make f5 (and a6 and b7) worthless. Having achieved these aims, the game will win itself.

Here's a sample variation illustrating the nightmares facing Black:

1.e4 e6 2.Be2!! d5 3.exd5! exd5 4.Bf3! Nf6 5.b3!

White will play Ne2 in due course, but here it would allow ...Bg4. We may play h3 at some point to prevent it, but we'll get Black to waste a tempo with the Bc8 first if we can. Note too that not playing d4 lets White avoid the traditional bad Bc1 in the Exchange French - and indeed, many variations of the French.

5...Bd6 6.Bb2 Qe7+

Aiming to force Ne2. Be careful what you wish for, French fiends...

7.Ne2! Bg4 8.Bxf6!! Qxf6 9.Bxg4! Qxa1 10.Nec3

The cage is shut! 10.Bc8 is good, too.

10...d4 11.Qe2+ Kd8 12.0-0! dxc3 13.Nxc3 Qb2 14.Qb5 b6 15.Qd5 Qxc2 16.Qxa8

16.Bf5 first might be even better.

16...c6 17.Qb7 Rf8

If 17...Re8, then 18.Qc8+ Ke7 19.Re1+ wins. Or if 17...f5, then 18.Qxg7 Re8 19.Qf6+ and 20.Qxf5, with two free extra pawns.

18.Qc8+ Ke7 19.Nd5+! and here Black resigns, as he loses the queen (19...cxd5 20.Qxc2). (This exquisite masterpiece can be replayed here.)

As it turns out, 2.Be2 actually exists in the databases, though my interpretation of it seems to be unique. Neverthless, the mere fact of its existence demonstrates that all the existing monographs on the French are utterly worthless, and their authors should hang their heads in shame. They should return their royalty checks (or better, forward the proceeds to me) and start from scratch, being sure to cover this new, brilliant line in tremendous detail. (While they're at it, the Bücker/Monokroussos Variation 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 should finally get mentioned by a French Defense author, too.)

* That would be me. After all, I'm its only research scientist.

May I ask you what your elo rating is? Mine was only 2560 ICCF in 1992 but I would not assign two exclamation marks for Be2. Are you contemplating to write a book or publish a video for how to refute the French defense? If so; have a look at my assessment of your line.

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2013.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "e4 e6 2.Be2"]
[Black "analysis"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Annotator "kwid"]
[PlyCount "32"]
[EventDate "2013.03.19"]

1. e4 e6 2. Be2 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. Bf3 Nf6 5. b3 Bd6 6. Bb2 O-O 7. h3 (7. Ne2 Bg4 8. Bxg4 Nxg4 9. h3 (9. g3 Re8 10. O-O Qg5) 9... Nh2 10. Nbc3 Qg5 11. g3 Nf3+) 7... Ne4 8. Ne2 (8. d3 Ng5 9. Kf1 c6) (8. Nc3 Re8 9. Nge2 Nc6 10. Nb5 Ng5 11. Bg4 Bxg4 12. hxg4 Bc5 13. O-O Qd7 14. d4 Bb6 15. f3 a6 16. Nbc3 Qd6) 8... Qh4 9. Bxe4 dxe4 10. O-O (10. Na3 Nc6 11. Nc4 Bc5 12. O-O (12. Ne3 Be6 13. g3 Qh6 14. Nf4 Bd4 15. c3 Bxe3 16. dxe3 Rad8 17. Qc2 Rfe8 18. Rd1 Rxd1+) 12... Be6 13. d4 exd3 14. Qxd3) 10... Nc6 11. Ng3 f5 12. Qe2 Be6 13. Na3 a6 14. Rad1 Rad8 15. Nc4 Bxg3 16. fxg3 Qxg3 0-1

2.-c5 tranposes to a sicilian were Be2
is not posing any questions to black.

2.-b6 transposes to Owen were the Bishop is much better placed on the usual d3 -square.

Ok, Be2 does make sense if played to get your opponent out of book. It is not a losing move. Qe2 instead or d3 as Fisher played in many games are reasonable alternatives to Be2.

Black is not forced to play d5 in reply to Be2 but the center grabbing d5 move seems to be the best reply to Be2 to equalize with ease. I went through some lines again to see the correctness of my assumptions:

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2013.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "e4 e6 2.Be2"]
[Black "analysis"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Annotator "kwid"]
[PlyCount "32"]
[EventDate "2013.03.19"]

His most recent work is Positional Play, the second of five books in his "Grandmaster Preparation" series. The book is built around a very simple approach, which is that "all you need are three questions":

1. Where are the weaknesses?
2. Which is the worst-placed piece?
3. What is your opponent's idea?

Aagaard makes clear that by saying that this is "all you need" he doesn't mean that reflecting on these three questions will enable one to play perfect positional chess. Remember that this is the "Grandmaster Preparation" series, and his target audience will already play at a pretty high level and possess a good deal of acumen when it comes to positional understanding. Aagaard's goal is "not [primarily] to make you understand chess better," but rather "to teach positional judgment and decision-making." As he also says, "[t]he purpose of the three questions is to direct your focus".

This is a useful aim, and it seems to me that the first and third questions are especially valuable and usable for players of almost any level. The second question, which I've heard attributed to Makagonov and others, seems a bit more iffy to me, both in terms of use and definition, though there are certainly times when focusing on that question can be of use.

At any rate, the book has gotten off to a slightly bumpy start for me. The book's second example, in a proto-chapter called "Visualizing the Three Questions", starts with this position (with Black to move) from Giri-Aronian, from last year's Olympiad in Istanbul:

Aagaard highlights White's d-pawn as a weakness and c5 and b2 as potential weaknesses (question 1); considers the white knight on b1 and the black bishop on c8 as the worst-placed pieces for each side (question 2), and highlights Nb1-c3-e4-d6 as White's plan (question 3).

Before going on with the game, a question (or two): why is the white knight his worst-placed piece? Of course it isn't great on b1, but it has a future and can immediately find a decent home on c3, with e4 and d6 being even better. Why isn't the rook on a1 the worst-placed piece? It's really stupid on a1, and while nothing prevents the knight from hopping into the action, the rook on a1 is hemmed in by the knight and the other rook too. Unless we define "worst-placed" by a sort of subtraction (value of the best square it can reasonably head for minus the value of the square it's currently on), it's hard to see how the knight is really the best candidate here.

Let's move on. Aronian played 18...e5!, to which my first inclination was "what?" It's not that I don't see the point of the move - of course I do. Further, the more one looks at it, the more obvious it is that it's the correct move. Black's bishop is liberated and the c5 pawn is weakened. My surprise isn't really the move but in seeing how it's supposed to emerge from reflection on The Three Questions. On the plus side, it takes care of Black's worst-placed piece and renders c5 a more serious weakness. (The b-pawn is also rendered a touch weaker.) But the pawn that was listed as THE weakness is not only being assailed, but is allowed to purchase its own value in advance!

Well done! Now it's Black's turn. "Okay, my opponent has played 1.a4 - clearly he wants to activate the rook and go for f7. Can I stop this? Yes, I'll play 1...e6! That prevents Ra3, while also shielding f7 from a bishop or queen on the a2-g8 diagonal. It's true that it doesn't do anything for my worst-placed piece, but if 1...a5 2.Ra3 Ra6 3.Rf3 Rf6 4.b3! followed by 5.Bb2 forces the exchange on f3, and then I'm helping him develop. So I'll stick to 1...e6."

White again: "Yes, that's very clever. He is ready to develop some pieces, and he has pervented Ra3-Rf3. But I have two rooks, and my rook on h1 is only slightly worse-placed than the other rook. So now I'll play 2.h4, followed by Rh3, h5 (if the h-pawn is still eyed by his queen) and Rf3. Problem solved!"

Ridiculous, I know. The answer Aagaard might give is that he isn't offering a method in the way that Nimzowitsch's My System or Jeremy Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess does. His book tries to show a player what to focus on, that's all. But that doesn't really seem to be a satisfying answer. It isn't hard to think of positions where The Three Questions are useless, and not just on move 1. So how do we focus our thinking then? Either we need more questions, or we need to turn The Three Questions into a proper method by learning how to apply them even in cases where they don't yet seem to be relevant.