These are all welcome additions to the stable of recent English language books on the French Defense. While some trendy variations (several lines in the Sicilian spring to mind) seem to generate new books just about every year, there have not been nearly as many offerings on this interesting and complex defense. Though the Winawer (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4) has been the subject of some coverage (IM John Watson’s excellent 1996 repertoire book, PLAY THE FRENCH, springs to mind), there has been precious little written about the other black choices after 3.Nc3 (including 3…Nf6 and 3…dxe4).  Tim Harding wrote a nice book (THE CLASSIC FRENCH), but that was 10 years ago, and a lot has changed.

All three authors take their shot at making up for lost time, but were they granted the pages to do time justice? There are plenty of recent examples in key lines like the Burn Variation (3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4), the Classical (4…Be7), the McCutcheon (4…Bb4) and the Steinitz (4.e5). It is notable that Jacobs covers only lines after 3…Nf6. Thus, lines where black plays an immediate 3…dxe4 are not specifically covered (such as the variation after 3…dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bd7). On the other hand, Pedersen covers all lines after 3.Nc3. 

The theory is generally recent – both Jacobs and Pedersen references to games from 2001, and the majority of the games and game fragments in all three books are mostly from the past 5 years. In some areas (particularly the chapter on main line after 4…Be7 5.e5 Nfd7) Jacobs includes a lot of references to correspondence games; this is often an overlooked area for discussion and development of opening theory. The number of references to older games in this area from both authors struck me – there is little doubt that the theory in this line has been at least somewhat stable for a long time.

Of course, for many players, stable theory isn’t a bad thing. If you’re looking for a solid variation that you can play for the rest of your life and not worry about it being refuted, the Classical French is a good choice. In that case, a player will be looking for a book that explains the key themes and types of positions that arise. It should be noted that both of the Everyman Chess books are built around illustrative games (78 in Jacobs’ book, 48 in McDonald’s), and these can be useful for the player wishing to understand how the opening plays out through the other phases of the game. While Pedersen’s book includes a few complete games, there are many more in the books by Jacobs and McDonald.

While Pedersen does not include a lot of complete games, he provides a fair amount of explanation about what both sides are trying to accomplish, and that can be as useful as the games themselves. All three authors provide reasonable commentary, but Pedersen stands out in discussing move order nuance. As an example, in the Steinitz variation after 4.e5 Nfd7 recent praxis has focused on 5.Nce2 c5 6.c3, which is a center holding variation that dates back to, well, Steinitz himself. One of the chief proponents of the line, Anand, chose to play 6.f4 in a game with Shirov from the 2000 FIDE knockout tournament. Pedersen provides some interesting commentary on how this move may allow white to avoid 6.c3 cxd4 7.cxd4 f6 (which is one of black’s better options). Even though this game is the first illustrative game in Jacobs’ book, he provides no commentary on this move order nuance.

It is always enlightening to see where an author concentrates his attention, and in Jacobs’ book, the Steinitz variation gets the nod for most extensive coverage. A little more than a third of the book’s pages are devoted to the line. Of that total, 18 are devoted to what both Jacobs and Pedersen would suggest is the critical line with 5.Nce2. This means that the bulk of the coverage is devoted to older lines based around 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3. While these have been very popular, black has found a variety of ways to deal with white’s set-up, and theory and practice don’t suggest that white has much, if any, of an advantage in these lines. I think that Pedersen’s coverage, which sacrifices some coverage in these older lines, is more indicative of this state of affairs. Of course, if one is a regular practitioner of this line, Jacobs’ coverage may be to your liking.

Both books also update coverage of the McCutcheon variation. This has always been something of a theoretical backwater, playing second fiddle to the trendier Winawer and solid variants after 4…Be7. Even so, many enterprising players, including Korchnoi, Morozovich, and Gurevich are willing to slug it out in the murky positions that often arise. While both books offer plenty of material you will not find in other books covering this variation (which has been sorely in need of additional coverage), I get the feeling that the truly authoritative look at this line is still to come. 

As an example, in the line after 5.e5 h6 6.Bd2 Bxc3 7.bxc3 Ne4 8.Qg4 Kf8, Pedersen admits that he is not sure what is white’s most exact move. He rightly points out that 9.Bc1 isn’t dangerous, and he provides reasonable coverage of 9.Bd3, which is most natural but sometimes avoided because of 9…Qg5+ 10.Qxg5 hxg5. Pedersen suggests that white gets some advantage after 11.g4. After 9.Nf3, Pedersen concentrates on 9…c5 10.Bd3 Nxd2 11.Kxd2 Nc6 where white may get some advantage after 12.dxc5. He suggests that black should play 11…c4 12.Be2 and then 12…Nc6. Pedersen remarks that “Korchnoi played this recently, and there doesn’t seem to be any clear way for White to exploit it.” That, unfortunately, completes the coverage of the very important 9.Nf3. This is one of the concerns I have with the book – there is so much material to cover that often the lines aren’t extended very far.

Generally, I found Pedersen’s coverage to be sparer of the two books in this variation. For example, both note that after 5.exd5 exd5 the game has transposed into the Exchange Variation in a way that is somewhat better for white than typical exchange variation lines.  However, Pedersen doesn’t explain why or provide any analysis. By contrast, Jacobs analyzes a couple of different methods from that position. Likewise, after 5.Ne2 (a favorite of the Polgar sisters), Jacobs’ coverage is more extensive.

There are some points where with Jacobs’ coverage could also have been extended. For starters, there is basically no coverage of the …Qg5+ idea mentioned above. Second, Jacobs’ method of using illustrative games to illustrate the lines means that some interesting transpositions and methods of play tend to get lost (and others are very hard to find). For example, after 5.e5 h6 6.Bd2 Bxc3 7.bxc3 Ne4 8.Qg4 g6 9.Bd3 Nxd2 10.Kxd2 c5 11.h4 is a critical line, but Jacobs only covers it in a note to 11.Nf3 (the key move in one of his illustrative games) and via transposition with 11.Nf3 Bd7 12.h4 (as another illustrative game). The first problem is that after 11.h4 Bd7 white has interesting alternatives to 12.Nf3. While Jacobs covers 12.h5!?, he does not mention Minev’s interesting suggestion of 12.Bxg6. Because he transposes into the analysis via 11…Bd7, it appears he also misses out on interesting black alternatives in 11…Qe7 and 1…Ne7!?

I say it appears he misses out on alternatives, because it is very hard to know exactly what is covered in some of these sidelines in Jacobs’ book. This is because of the illustrative games format, the lack of a detailed index, and the transpositional nature of many of these lines. It’s hard to keep track of things.

There are very real differences between the Everyman Chess books by Jacobs and McDonald. McDonald’s book has fewer pages, fewer illustrative games (48 versus 77), and a larger font. McDonald’s book has more of a conversational feel to it, and it starts with a 13 page thematic introduction; by contrast Jacobs more or less gets right down to the analysis. As a result, they offer differences in the way they compare to Pedersen’s book. In many areas, Jacobs’ coverage surpasses Pedersen’s. By contrast, even though McDonald devotes more pages (144 to 96), it doesn’t feel like there is all that much more analysis in his book than Pedersen’s. Of course, McDonald spends 13 pages on an introduction, 7 on chapter summaries, and 2 more on an index of complete games (but no index of variations). When you subtract these pages, the coverage gets to be pretty close, page-wise.

There are some things to like about McDonald’s book. First, he is a regular French practitioner. This shows up in a certain sure-handedness in his theoretical pronouncements. You get the feeling that he has spent a lot of time studying these lines and that we are getting more than just a recitation of theory based on a well-culled database. Second, this knowledge comes across in his commentary. There is a lot of understanding reflected in his words.

Probably the biggest downside is that time doesn’t stand still for any variation, and the Winawer has its share of evolutionary variations. One where Pedersen’s book has more to offer is the recently popular Armenian variation with 5.a3 Ba5. While McDonald covers the main bases here, there have been developments in the past year. It is often these sorts of newly mined variations where older books suffer, and this one has been getting a lot of play of late.

I doubt that a true Winawer addict will find either McDonald or Pedersen’s book to be sufficient for thorough coverage of the variation. Pedersen has, to get everything on this variation into the allotted pages, done a lot of slicing and dicing of older theory. This is understandable, but there are players who are going to find lines they run across not covered here. For example, when I looked at an old favorite 3…Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.Qg4 Qc7 8.Qxg7 Rg8 9.Qxh7 cxd4 10.Kd1 I found a lot of lines that had not made it into the book. For example, after 10…dxc3 11.Nf3 Nc6 is the main line, but 11…Nd7 has been played. McDonald analyzes this, concentrating on 12.Bb5!?, which seems to give white good play. Pedersen, by only analyzing 11…Nc6 would seem to suggest that 11…Nd7 is inferior, but we do not know because there is no mention of it.  McDonald has his problems in this variation as well – after 10…Nbc6 11.Nf3 Nxe5 is another critical variation. Pedersen spends about a page on the possibilities after 12.Bf4 Qxc3 13.Nxe5 Qxa1+ 14.Bc1. While best play is probably a draw, either side will need to know a bit about this line to get to the end result. There are other examples as well, but these should suffice.

For those looking for an up to date coverage of all the lines after 3.Nc3, Pedersen’s book makes the most sense. By contrast, a player buying both the McDonald and Jacobs books will spend $17 and still have a similar amount of content, part of which will not have as recent coverage. Still, Pedersen’s book will not satisfy died in the wool French theory hounds; they will find the snipping necessary to fit all these lines into 256 pages too constraining. As a general guide, however, this is a good one, and the author does a fair job of explaining what is going on. I also prefer the Gambit tree approach to Everyman’s preference for complete games; I think it is much easier to follow the theory and keep track of transpositions with this method.

For specialists in most of the lines covered, Jacobs’ book might get the nod. His coverage of the Steinitz is particularly thorough, and he gets a slight nod in the McCutcheon lines as well. The Classical coverage is less clear, and Pedersen does have the advantage of covering some of the …dxe4 lines that won’t normally arise from the 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 move order (such as 3.Nc3/Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bd7). Jacobs provides a very thorough look at most lines, which is evidenced by the densely packed pages. He is also willing to provide his share of theoretical suggestions. However, the book is hard to follow in some places, largely because of the illustrative games format and the lack of an index of variations.

McDonald’s book will likely appeal to those seeking to understand the Winawer.  McDonald is a very credible author on the French – he is a regular practitioner and has, in fact, co-authored the book Mastering the French with the Read and Play Method. When he discusses plans and variations, he does so as one with a deep appreciation for the defense under scrutiny. His book is less heavy on theory and more focused on discussion.  At the same time, you will find quite a bit of original analysis here. Of course, Pedersen can (and does) draw on that analysis and opinion in his later book. Not surprisingly, McDonald suffers in variations that have seen a lot of theoretical growth in the past year.

In the end, the choice of which of these books to buy will be very much an individual one, depending on the unique needs of the reader. Each book should appeal to many players, and each moves the theory of this important defense forward in its own way.

Click to see Donaldson’s review of FRENCH CLASSICAL, Donaldson’s review of FRENCH WINAWER, and Watson’s review of THE MAIN LINE FRENCH: 3.Nc3.

YOU CAN FIND THE FRENCH CLASSICAL AT

YOU CAN FIND THE FRENCH WINAWER AT

YOU CAN FIND THE MAIN LINE FRENCH: 3.Nc3. AT