Editing French Defence (section)

===Exchange Variation: 3.exd5 <span class="anchor" id="Exchange Variation"></span>===
{{Chess diagram
| tright
|
|rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd|nd|rd
|pd|pd|pd|  |  |pd|pd|pd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |pd|  |  |  |
|  |  |  |pl|  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|pl|pl|pl|  |  |pl|pl|pl
|rl|nl|bl|ql|kl|bl|nl|rl
| Exchange Variation after 3.exd5 exd5
}}
Many players who begin with 1.e4 find that the French Defence is the most difficult opening for them to play against due to the closed structure and unique strategies of the system. Thus, many players choose to play the Exchange so that the position becomes simpler and more clearcut. White makes no effort to exploit the advantage of the first move, and has often chosen this line with expectation of an early draw, and indeed draws often occur if neither side breaks the symmetry. An extreme example was [[José Raúl Capablanca|Capablanca]]–[[Géza Maróczy|Maróczy]], [[Lake Hopatcong]] 1926, which went: 4.Bd3 Bd6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.0-0 0-0 7.Bg5 Bg4 8.Re1 Nbd7 9.Nbd2 c6 10.c3 Qc7 11.Qc2 Rfe8 12.Bh4 Bh5 13.Bg3 Bxg3 14.hxg3 Bg6 15.Rxe8+ Rxe8 16.Bxg6 hxg6 17.Re1 Rxe1+ 18.Nxe1 Ne8 19.Nd3 Nd6 20.Qb3 a6 21.Kf1 {{chessAN|½–½}}.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1094365 |title=Capablanca vs. Maroczy, Lake Hopatcong 1926 |website=[[Chessgames.com]] }}</ref>

Despite the symmetrical pawn structure, White cannot force a draw. An obsession with obtaining one sometimes results in embarrassment for White, as in Tatai–[[Viktor Korchnoi|Korchnoi]], [[Beer Sheva]] 1978, which continued 4.Bd3 c5!? 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Qe2+ Be7 7.dxc5 Nf6 8.h3 0-0 9.0-0 Bxc5 10.c3 Re8 11.Qc2 Qd6 12.Nbd2 Qg3 13.Bf5 Re2 14.Nd4 Nxd4 {{chessAN|0–1}}.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1082469 |title=Tatai vs. Korchnoi, Be'er Sheva 1978 |website=[[Chessgames.com]] }}</ref> A less extreme example was [[Mikhail Gurevich (chess player)|Gurevich]]&ndash;[[Nigel Short|Short]], Manila 1990 where White, a strong Russian [[International Grandmaster|grandmaster]], played openly for the draw but was ground down by Short in 42 moves.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1124451 |title=Gurevich vs. Short, Manila 1990 |website=[[Chessgames.com]] }}</ref>

To create genuine winning chances, White will often play c2–c4 at some stage to put pressure on Black's d5-pawn. Black can give White an isolated queen's pawn by capturing on c4, but this gives White's pieces greater freedom, which may lead to attacking chances. This occurs in lines such as 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 (played by GMs [[Normunds Miezis]] and [[Maurice Ashley]]) and 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.c4, which may transpose to the [[Petroff's Defence|Petroff]]. Conversely, if White declines to do this, Black may play c7–c5 himself, e.g. 4.Bd3 c5, as in the above-cited Tatai–Korchnoi game.

If c2–c4 is not played, White and Black have two main piece setups. White may put his pieces on Nf3, Bd3, Bg5 (pinning the black knight), Nc3, Qd2 or the queen's knight can go to d2 instead and White can support the centre with c3 and perhaps play Qb3. Conversely, when the queen's knight is on c3, the king's knight may go to e2 when the enemy bishop and knight can be kept out of the key squares e4 and g4 by f3. When the knight is on c3 in the first and last of the above strategies, White may choose either {{cgloss|castling short|short}} or {{cgloss|castling long|long castling}}. The positions are so symmetrical that the options and strategies are the same for both sides.

Another way to unbalance the position is for White or Black to castle on opposite sides of the board. An example of this is the line 4.Bd3 Nc6 5.c3 Bd6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.0-0 Nge7 8.Re1 Qd7 9.Nbd2 {{nowrap|0-0-0}}.