Earlier I mentioned that my other choices (against the Sicilian and e5) feature f4 as part of their normal plan, so I went looking to see if there was a response to the French along similar lines. It’s called, apparently, the La Bourdonnais Attack, named after the French (ironic!) chess player considered to be the best in the world before they had world championships.

There isn’t much on it, but what I have found looks interesting. And you can be sure that Black won’t be familiar with it – at least I never spent any time worrying about what to do if I faced 2. f4.

This is what I do on the weekend – instead of studying tactics or endgames, I fret over how I’m going to respond to a move I’ll see maybe 10% of the time (since half the time I’ll be Black).

I play the French as Black and am relatively satisfied with it; with the time invested I don’t feel like starting from scratch with another defense and I think the results have been reasonable. It’s been the one constant through the past five plus years of tournament play. I have fiddled around with my defense to d4 and have a ridiculous ADD when it comes to what to play as White, but haven’t really taken up anything against e4 except e6.

I made a promise with myself (about a year ago) to pick an opening as White and stick with it, and so far I have kept it. I play e4 and with the help of a variety of books I have started to flesh out a repertoire.

Listed (and studied) in order of likelihood to face:

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 – Grand Prix Attack (with 3. Bb5 if 2. … Nc6) [source: Starting Out: Sicilian Grand Prix Attack, by Gawain Jones]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 – Bishop’s Opening [source: Attacking with 1.e4, by John Emms]

1. e4 e6 2. ??

Yeah, I am not sure how to respond to the French. Might seem strange, given my familiarity with the other side of the board, but my memory is, well, awful, and what I can keep in mind is more of general plans and basic move orders. So when I think about how to play against my pet defense, I just think of what Black can do. I may not be explaining it well, but trust me that I don’t feel any advantage in having to face a defense I’ve played for years. So what to do?

As you can see from my other lines, I like to pick “off-Broadway” continuations with an easy (relatively speaking) plan. The GPA especially – just push f4, get the Queen to h4 (via e1), sac a pawn and mate the king. Well, at least in theory it is an easy to understand model. The Bishop’s Opening also features f4 and I like the positions that result. So what to do??

Well the Emms book recommends the Kings Indian Attack. It would seem to fit the bill of not being the most common approach and it definitely has a simple plan – that is its main appeal for those who play the KIA against everything. The problem is, I don’t like the resulting positions. Picky, picky, I know. So what to do???

How about the Reti Gambit?

I am a pretty risk-adverse guy – I have no interest in sky diving and I tend not to leave the house unless necessary – so I am a little nervous about giving up a pawn so early. But on the other hand the moves seem to almost play themselves; you develop the rest of your pieces to regain the pawn, get to quickly castle (queenside) and the positions look promising. Of course if it was as good as the main lines it would become a mainline, but I’m not delusional on that point. I am not playing against GMs (and rarely even Masters), and if I can get reasonable positions out of the opening where I am more familiar than my opponent with the standard plans, I have an advantage (that may or may not manifest on the board).

Another plus is that the skeleton of the gambit is presented in six videos. No need to buy yet another openings book, although if I decide to take this up I’ll probably buy it anyway.