There have been some recent publications on IM Jiri Nun's variation of the Milner Barry Gambit (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Qb6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bd3 cxd4 7.cxd4 Bd7 8.O-O Nxd4 9.Nbd2!?), which some would rename the "Misa Pap Attack" after its most recent and public GM advocate (see videos below). In analyzing the game Melekhina-Forestier, Poland 2010, I definitely gained some respect for this gambit line against the French Defense, and there are many attractive lines in GM Misa Pap's recent analysis in Chess Informant #113 (available for instant download for only $3.99). Besides Nun, Pap, and Melekhina, GM David Smerdon has used the gambit on occasion. The line receives only passing reference in books; for instance, Sam Collins in The French Advance (2nd ed. Everyman 2006) gives only the game Jesus Baron Rodriguez - Carlos Matamoros Franco, Campillos 2005 as his example. So fans of surprise lines (and perhaps fans of the Smith-Morra) are sure to find it attractive.
Michael Goeller, Sidelined in the Milner Barry Gambit (2010) Analyzes a nice win for White with this line in Melekhina - Forestier, Poland 2010. I would not be surprised to see a full length video coming out from Empire Chess by Melekhina on the line (see video below).
Shaun Press, 2008 Anu Open -- Round 1. ChessExpress Blog (2008) Posts the game Smerdon - Grcic [C02] ANU Open, 26.07.2008.
Mila Bjelajac, "9.Nbd2!? in the C02 French Defense." ChessCafe (2005) A very detailed article from the Informant, especially for those looking for a free theory reference.
I have annotated the game Goeller - Sherer, Kenilworth CC Championship 2011, from the fourth round of the club championship played Thursday night. It was my second McDonnell - La Bourdonnais Attack (1.e4 e6 2.f4) of this tournament, and a very complex and interesting game. Of course, it probably could have been even better if I didn't have to play the second half of it with less than a minute plus 5 second increment on my clock. I definitely have to work on my time management! But despite my time challenge, I still managed to pull off a win, putting me in contention for the championship next week in a final round game with tournament leader Ken Chieu.
I have annotated two of my Adventures with the La Bourdonnais - McDonnell Attack vs. the French (1.e4 e6 2.f4), including a disappointing draw with John Moldovan from Round 2 of the Kenilworth Chess Club Championship. John has annotated the game as well, and it is interesting to compare notes. Though I wasn't happy with my play or with the outcome, the game did strengthen my belief in my nineteenth century opening repertoire. I just have to learn how to play on two sides at once and exercise a little more lateral thinking to do so. For more analysis of this line, see my article on McDonnell's Anti-French.
I have annotated the game Thomson - Stoyko, Garden State Chess League 2010, played Thursday night at the Kenilworth Chess Club in the match between Summit and Kenilworth. Steve Stoyko chose an interesting approach as Black against Simon Thomson's Tarrasch French, closing up the center and setting up a classic struggle on opposite sides of the board. Though the pawn structure gave White great potential for a kingside attack, Stoyko struck first with a queenside attack, eventually sacrificing a piece in order to create dangerous passed pawns in that region. Thomson battled back with a dangerous kingside attack (despite the exchange of Queens) and should have been able to force a draw by perpetual check (see diagram above) with the surprising 33.Bxh6! But time pressure mistakes gave Black the point. Steve said after the game that practically every move was "a study in choices." Sort of a "Stoyko Exercise" at every turn!
There is a wonderful lecture series by GM Ronen Har-Zvi at ICC on what he calls the "Pseudo-Steinitz Variation of the French," where Black plays 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Ne4!? to mess up White's plans, with one continuation being 5.Nce2!? f6!? (see for example Nijboer - Kujif, Wijk aan Zee 1991). FM Steve Stoyko was apparently inspired by Har-Zvi's lecture enough to try the same idea against the Two Knights French after 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Ne4!? 5.Ne2 f6!? (see diagram above). I have annotated Milonovic - Stoyko, Hamilton Quads 2009 (or download the PGN) to explore this idea, which turns out to be much more interesting for Black than the result of the game would indicate.
I have posted an article on the Monte Carlo Exchange Variation of the French Defense (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 -- download PGN), which is an ideal short-cut or low-theory line for those who like a wide-open game with plenty of piece play. There are also several themes and tactical motifs that are easy to learn and that will score you many points over the board and in online blitz. I have included a bibliography, reproduced below and kept up to date here. See also my games collection at Chessgames.com which includes games from books and articles on the line and other games important to the theory of the line.
Monte Carlo Variation Bibliography
Avrukh, Boris. Grandmaster Repertoire 1B - The Queen's Gambit (Quality Chess, 2016). In his repertoire against the Queen's Gambit Accepted, Avrukh recommends the line 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 which transposes to a weak version of our line after 3...e5 4.Bxc4 exd4 5.exd4, and White has an advantage. See table of contents.
Baburin, Alexander. "Play on the e-file." Winning Pawn Structures (Batsford 2003): 92-101.
In his contemporary classic on the isolani pawn structure, GM Baburin devotes a chapter mostly to positions where the e-file is unobstructed by pawns. This position can arise from many openings, but especially the Queen's Gambit Accepted (1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 e5 4.Bxc4 exd4 5.exd4) or the French Exchange Variation (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 dxc4 5.Bxc4). Baburin notes that "pressure along the e-file is particularly unpleasant for Black where it is combined with pressure along the a2-g8 diagonal." An excellent book and a very useful chapter.
Burgess, Graham. 101 Chess Opening Surprises (Gambit 2001): 62.
Offers a brief repertoire with the line 4.c4 Bb4+ 5.Nc3 Ne7, focused around the games of Tal Shaked and biased toward Black.
Glek, Igor. "French Defence, Exchange Variation." New in Chess Yearbook 20 (1991): 39-41.
A balanced treatment of the line with an early White c4, focused on the game Klinger - Glek, Werfen Open 1990, which began 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.c4 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 O-O 7.Be2 Ne4?! 8.Qb3! += and was eventually won by White.
Lane, Gary. "A French Farce." Opening Lanes 46 at ChessCafe.
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/lane46.pdf (link above goes to Web Archive)
Mednis, Edmar. "The Not-so-harmless Exchange Variation of the French Defence." Practical Opening Tips (Cardogan / Everyman 1997): 110-117.
Mednis's book is an excellent treatment of themes in the opening, but this chapter also offers a rather thorough and positive treatment of lines following both 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 c6 (which can also arise via the Slav move order 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e5 4.e3 exd4 5.exd4 Nf6) and 4.Nf3, which can transpose.
Minev, Nikolay. "French Defense – Exchange Variation: The Potential of c2-c4." (TheChessLibrary 2012). http://www.thechesslibrary.com/articles/MiniLesson024.pdf
A nice PDF article offering numerous interesting games with the line, showing interesting tactical motifs for both White and Black.
Pedersen, Steffen. French Advance and Other Lines (Gambit 2005): 104-106.
Focuses on the line 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 Bb4+ 5.Nc3 Ne7 6.Nf3 Bg4 as illustrated by the games of Miezis as White and Shaked as Black. Pedersen's main line goes 7.Be2 dxc4 8.Bxc4 O-O 9.Be3 Nbc6 10.O-O Nf5 11.Qd3 Nd6 12.Bd5 which has occurred in numerous high level games (including at least one of Pedersen's own).
Razuvaev, Yuri. "You were right, Monsieur La Bourdonnais!" Secrets of Opening Preparation. Ed. Mark Dvoretsky and Artur Yusupov. (Olms 2007): 170-180.
A useful article that reinforces my favorite theme in these pages: that there is still a lot of opening knowledge to gain from the great players of even the most distant past. Razuvaev considers the line 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 e5!? as contested in the classic LaBourdonnais - McDonnell match -- a line that typically transposes to the Monte Carlo Variation after 4.Bxc4 exd4 5.exd4. Thanks to reader Jose for pointing me to this article, which I had initially overlooked.
Van der Sterren, Paul. "Transposition from the Queens Gambit." New in Chess Yearbook 32 (1994). Considers the line 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 e5 4. Bxc4 (Queens Gambit Accepted or Monte Carlo French) 4...exd4 5.exd4 Nf6 6.Nf3 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8. h3 Nc6, which is now a Petroff, as in Gelfand - Adams Wijk aan Zee 1994. Thanks to reader Jose for this information.
Watson, John. Play the French, 3rd Edition (Everyman Chess 2003): 71-73.
Focuses on the games of Watson's former student Tal Shaked with the line 4....Bb4+ 5.Nc3 Ne7 -- as he notes, "A move this book helped to bring to attention."
I have posted analysis of what I call The Labourdonnais - McDonnell Attack against the French Defense, with 1.e4 e6 2.f4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nf3. It is a fascinating line well worth reviving, as Igor Glek recently argued in SOS #8.
Though theory clearly prefers the name Labourdonnais Variation for the line that begins 1.e4 e6 2.f4 and McDonnell Attack for 1.e4 c5 2.f4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.e5, I think that even a glance at the historical record should convince anyone that McDonnell deserves credit for both. I suppose Labourdonnais gains the name on the strength of his attractive game De LaBourdonnais - Lecrivain, Paris 1837. But this example is clearly preceded by McDonnell - De LaBourdonnais, Match 1834 which began with the French move order, let alone the more than a dozen additional games with the line between these two unofficial rivals for the "world championship." My favorite game with this opening between the two, McDonnell - De LaBourdonnais, London Match 1834, shows what an exciting and hard fought series of contests it was. It seems fitting that the opening be named after both of them, as they are forever linked in the annals of chess history and even lie in nearly adjacent graves in London's Kensal Green.
As a player of the Two Knights French myself, I have looked at the Jackal Attack and read Skelton's first edition (he has since issued an update). Anyone interested in learning more about this line can find a lot of analysis on the web, starting with Skelton's own website on "The Jackal Attack" (where you can purchase a copy of his self-published book) and several reviews: "Play of the Jackal," "The Jackal Attack and Other Stories," and "French Defense: Jackal Attack" (with java replay here). Perhaps the most incisive commentary, however, is to be found in Glenn Flear's review from New in Chess Yearbook #72 (btw: Skelton's original analysis appeared in NIC Yearbook #61) titled "The Way of the Jackal" (in PDF).
In the game, Steve walked into an Exchange sacrifice that started to look like a mammoth trap.
Mammoth Trap? Black to play after 12.Bb5
However, as with all mammoth traps (see here and here for examples), it's hard to contain the beast. And Steve saw that he could escape the trap fairly easily by battering open the a-file with 12...a5! Instead, he played too quickly 12...O-O?! when White is able to force a draw after 13.O-O followed by Nc3 and (after the forced Qxb2) Rb1-b3-b1-b3 with perpetual threat on the Queen.
