2.d4   |   2.d3   |   2.Qe2   |   2.b3   |   What's New?   |   index of variations
The French Defense is an old opening. It is mentioned in Lucena's work in 1497. The name of the opening comes from a correspondence game between London and Paris, where the French played 1...e6 and won in 1834. Not long after that the Russian master Jaenisch published some extensive analysis of the opening in 1842. Up until the end of the nineteenth century the opening lacked any serious followers. Today the opening can thank Maroczy for bringing attention to it.
"I have never in my life played the French Defence, which is the dullest of all openings" - STEINITZ
"A beginner should avoid Queen's Gambit and French Defence and play open games instead!" - RICHARD RETI
There are some common strategies in the French defense. Black will have to find a way to get the light-squared bishop into the game. White will have to watch black's attack on his d4-pawn. The pawn formation in the center should remain dynamic as long as possible in most variations (the exception would be the advanced variation). Both sides must be careful not to fix the center too early.
What makes the opening so difficult, to start with, is the application of strategic comprehension. Take the first two moves of the opening, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5, how should white deal with this attack on his e4-pawn? It seems that all of his choices are contrary to some element of chess. To defend the e-pawn, should he allow the absolute pin of his knight on c3 and block his c-pawn, or should he block his bishop and develop the knight to d2? Should he lose an important tempo and push the attacked e-pawn, or should he trade the pawn opening the e-file before he has castled? All of these options are uncomfortable for white. Typically as the game progresses white finds himself with two threats, one on his e-pawn and another on his d-pawn. Every move he makes in the opening has to account for both threats. Lastly, white's queen is less active in many variations.
Now, that is not to say that black's game is a bed of roses. Black has problems too. What is black to do about his light-squared bishop, not to mention his lack of space on the kingside?

This site is dedicated to the French. We have tons of variations and annotations, and we are adding
more all the time. Feel free to send us your games in the French that have been
instructive for you. If they taught you something they might teach others.
If there is something you think should be added, please email me and let me know.
How many times have you heard someone say that to really understand the game of chess you must start with the endgame?

I have heard my friends espouse this point of view, and I have read it in chess books. Silman starts his book "How to Reassess your chess" with basic endgames. Others have taken the same approach.
Yes, the endgame is a very important part of the game of chess. Like the opening and the middlegame the endgame can cost a person the game. Many times a person will lose a game from a winning position just because they do not understand the endgame. People lose positions that could have been drawn. But does this explain why people think the endgame should be taught first? I don't think so.
When I watch my students play, the majority of the time, the game is technically won in the first eight moves. What I mean is that they give such advantages that their opponent should be able to nurse it for a win. (This is obviously the case with all beginners so why should this be left out of the reasoning?) They very seldom reach endgame positions worth writing a book about. Most beginners don't know about the center fork trick for instance. That is one reason I believe Opening Theory should be taught first. My thinking is that all parts of the game should get about equal time and that the opening is the best place to learn restraint and the majority of the elements of chess (which is what the beginners need the most of). In the middlegame one can discuss the placement of the rooks in more detail etc. In the endgame one can talk about the strength of the king, but in the opening we learn about the power of our army.
When I talk about openings with my students I stress the importance of playing without memorization. There is only one way the opening can really be understood; and that is by playing correctly using proper chess elements and principles. Save memorization for later when the student can understand why a move is "book".
In the opening we learn about king safety and center control. This is our first taste of what the center is all about. This is where we learn about pawn structure. This is where we figure out if we like open or closed games. We begin to understand ourselves in the opening unlike any other part of the game.
Let's face it. If you lose it in the opening you have pretty much lost the game. I believe, therefore, that the time for the endgame is once the beginner knows what is going on in the opening. In my experience they begin to get the endgame once they understand the opening. I could tell my new student what opposition is and how to achieve it without much thought, but it won't make sense until they understand the struggle it took to get there. I have found that the student's mind works a certain way; from the simple to the complex. Every move of the opening has to have purpose. When they get that they are more likely to get deeper analysis, much like the analysis that must go on in the endgame.
The last reason I prefer to hold off on teaching the endgame is because the student tires very quickly of the dry analytical nature of the endgame.