how do you like this line in the center counter defence

In the move order posted, this should just about never happen.

However, the position is adequate for Black, and there's a different move order to get to the same point that a lot of players will play into - so get to that position that way (see below):

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nxd5 4. Nxd5 Qxd5. 

Same result, much more reliable and sensible move order. 

Bostick_Enick, isn't 2 e5 just bad for White?  Black equalizes easily.

Ah, sorry -- I thought you meant 1 e4 d5 2 e5.  You probably meant 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5.  I like 2 ... Bc4 in the Alekhine, provoking 3 Nxe4 Bxf7+!

Looks like an Advance French after 3. e5 Nfd7.

Although 4. e6 could be interesting.

I don't know why you gave an exclamation mark to the move 3...Bxf7, since white is really just asking for trouble with this move. After 1.e4 Nf6 2.Bc4 Nxe4 3.Bxf7+ Kxf7 4.Qh5+Kg8 5.Qd5+e6 6.Qxe4 d5 Black has the two Bishops, two center pawns, and every prospect of a win. You could argue that the black king's position is a little bit arkward, but this isn't so important as theory suggests that there's no way for white to exploit it.

Yeah, I should retract that exclam -- although I meant it more as a punctuation exclam than a chess-move exclam.  3 ... Bxf7+ does have some surprise/practical value against new Alekhine players, but I agree that objectively it's weaker than the main line.

Sorry but this is an Alekhine, in where white refused to let black play his opening.  I don't see this much but when I do it is usually pretty good for black.  Most of the time White will play 3.e5.

Yes, Wango -- we realize that 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 is Alekhine's Defense.  A couple of posters have pointed that out.  But it could transpose into a Scandinavian, or if you prefer, a (bad) line of the Scandinavian can transpose into a line of the Alekhine.

Hmm, just thought of a new question to post:  what determines whether we call something a transposition into Opening X or Opening Y?  Is it just the frequency with which that position arises in each order?  e.g. 1. e4 d5 (Scandinavian) 2. d4 (Blackmar-Diemer Gambit) -- should we say it transposed into the BDG?  Then if the order is 1. d4 d5 2. e4 should we say it transposed at all? 

It should be by what it starts out as.  In this case 1.e4, Nf6 starts as an Alekhine, so I'd say it then transposes into something else.  In this case it looks like white was trying to get a Viena.

Didn't read all the posts before I posted mine btw.

The opening should be looked at in relation to the game.  Playing 1. c4 does not make the game an English.  Sometimes an opening determination must be made several moves into the game.  1. e4 d5 is Center Counter, 1.e4 d5 2. d4 is BDG.  Openings are defined more by their positions than their move order especially in more complex cases such as many of the interelated Sicilian lines.

Carl, I'm inclined to agree, but then we run into this problem:  we will often (and repeatedly) be "correcting" ourselves.  Using your example, suppose a game begins 1. e4 d5 and we say, "Ah, good ol' Center Counter."  Then after 2. d4, do we say, "Oh, it's NOT a Center Counter!  It's a Blackmar-Diemer!"  Then after 2 ... c6 and 3. c4, do we say, "Wow, now it's a QGD Slav with the unusual e4 thrown in!"  [same as 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. e4]  At least naming a game's opening by the move order yields one single answer.

I guess my question is: given that transpositions do occur, what makes one opening have more of a claim to that position than another?  Is it frequency of the position reached by one move order versus another?

Basically, ECO (the encyclopedia of chess openings) decides what the opening is called, and the last position that has a name counts (the database program Scid goes backwards through a game, and the first position it encounters that has a name is the one it uses). They decide because they were the first to create a complete naming system, and it became the standard.

So ECO gives 1.d4 d5 2.e4 some name and a code (I'm at work and can't check, perhaps it's already called Blackmar-Diemer, perhaps that's only after 2...dxe4 3.Nc3 or even after 3...Nf6 4.f3). Since that is later in the game than the Scandinavian 1.e4 d5, it is a Blackmar-Diemer. Until black plays 2...e6, which is the French, et cetera.

Of course originally they tried to put positions in the chapters for the openings that were the most common way to reach them, but over the years opening popularity has changed, so it's not always the case.

Just saw an error in my earlier post:  the bracketed part should read "same as 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. e4" -- but I'm sure you guys knew what I meant there.

A problem -- perhaps not realistic, but in principle -- with the moving-backwards approach is that some positions might be "solved."  Surely, even if the Ruy Lopez Absolute Super-Rybka Main Line was solved to a K+R v K ending that wins for White with best play from both sides, we wouldn't say that all games that transpose to that were actually Spanish!

Anthony, thanks for the link.  I'll check it out right now.

Well, we are very, very far away from that situation - no lines in an opening encyclopedia are going to run to K+R v K any time soon :-)

But if there's, say, some early endgame position that can arise from several different openings and that ends up in ECO, then yes, we would call it after the chapter it was covered in. Once you're in that position, it doesn't matter anymore what the previous moves were.

But I don't know what the latest moves are in which there are still legitimate transpositions. Probably somewhere around move 10-15 in IQP or Maroczy Bind positions.

We strive for common naming as it is essential to understanding the opening and finding relevant materials.  Thus we've had MCO, ECO, NIC, etc.  Given our current situation, if somebody says "oh I play the Scandinavian" when refering to the move order 1.e4 d5 2.d4...  we are talking two separate issues and while I'm reading Sawyer's masterful BDG keybook with delight; he is lost because his search on "Scandinavian Opening" yields thousands of games that bear no relation to the position on the board and what he plays. 

As to what name sticks? Its part convention, part history, part functionality.  It used to be common to see openings labeled as "Opening X, by transpositon".  Sometimes MCO, ECO etc would label the same position with multiple names based on the move order used to reach it.  There are times when that is helpful as it lets you see, develop and understand deviations and their effect.  Computers have changed much of that as they see the position and don't worry how they got there.  Thus the backward look to find the last position with an opening name.

ECO did not develop in a vacumn. It used much of what went before, MCO, Bilger, Stanuton, Lasker. Everybody on chess.com seeking some fleeting notoriety, fame or immortality by slapping together a set of moves and labeling it as an opening are amusing themselves perhaps but really wasting time.