Caro-Kann Question - Just Curious

I am not an advocate of the Caro-Kann when I have Black, and against it, I play the Fantasy Variation.

But I have a question on the Classical Variation.  When I play at tournaments, I often see players on the board next to me playing 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2.  Why?  If Black tkes on e4, it makes no difference.  But what if Black doesn't?  What if he plays something like, 3...g6?  Doesn't putting the knight on d2 just plug up your development?  The French is a totally different story.  Many find the Winawer annoying and so they play the Tarrasch.  But here, Black has not moved his e-pawn.  There is no pin.  And if he does play ...e6 and ...Bb4, he is a tempo down in the Winawer as it will take him 2 moves to play ...c5.

So why do I see so many, especially Kids and teens, playing 3.Nd2 instead of 3.Nc3?

I play 3. Nd2 when going down that line. My own take is that after 3..., g6 I want a formation with a Pc3 not a Nc3. Say for example 1. e4, c6; 2. d4, d5; 3. Nd2, g6; 4. Ngf3, Bg7; 5. c3. The Nc6 has a rounte to g3 via f1. Slow, but solid.

I first picked this up in Schiller and Benjamin's "Unorthodox Chess Openings" (Batsford, 1980s) - they strongly preferred this sort of thing for White compared with the positions after 1. e4, c6; 2. d4, d5; 3. Nc3, g6.

I guess it's a question of personal preference.

I guess technically from c3 you could get to g3 via e2 instead of f1.

But in your line, do the c1-Bishop and a1-rook not suffer from lack of development?

I'll look up what Schiller and Benjamin said on this when I get home and post again...if I remember.

Well, anything besides 3... dxe4 is barely worth thinking about, for example 3... g6 against Nd2 is not the already dubious Gurgenidze, as suddenly White has Nb3 and c3 to shore up the d4 e5 pawn chain.

I have nothing. The Book gives a deeply flawed game transposing to a Gurgenidze Modern. So. Nothing here beyond "after 3..., g6 I'd like to have 4. c3 sitting there" and I'd like to avoid the Happy Hacker lines pointed out at #5 and #6. To paraphrase William of Ockham, "deviant lines should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

Could someone explain the motive behind b5 after Nc3? I'm new to this so called caro-kann.

@Battlingsquares Black's idea here is to threaten to play ..., b4 hitting the Nc3 thus challenging White's control of the e4 square. Sadly, it's not a terribly good idea. 4. a3 foils the dastardly plot, leaving Black with additional endgame weaknesses. To my mind, it's a line Black should really avoid. One example is Klovans-Gurgenidze, USSR Championship 1968-69:

 White seems to have a nice solid long-term endgame advantage.

I see. Yes pretty apparent that white looks comfy. But I'm curious to know would capturing on d5 be an issue? After b4, Na4 and then Nc5 at some point of time? Or c5, en passant and Nc3 again?

Correction: *I meant c4, bxc3 (en passant) and Nxc3 (back to its square again). This looks fine too for me!?

@Battlingsquares you'd need to give me some concrete lines. Afraid I don't really understand what you mean there. Generally, White doesn't much want to capture on d5 - the central tension keeps Black's c-Pawn on c6 thus preventing ..., Nb8-c6 and hoping for ..., dxe4; Nxe4 getting the Nc3 onto a nice square.

1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nd2 is not against 3 ... b5 or 3 ... a6 but against 3 ... g6. So 3 Nd2 g6 4 c3 Bg7 5 Bd3 and black has to figure out what to do with three minor pieces. In particular 5 ... Nf6 is horrible here. White's pieces make perfect sense for keeping the tension as well as any release of it: (a) ... d5xe4 (b) e4xd5 (c) e4-e5.

By contrast 3 Nc3 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7 black has an idea ... Bg4 so white usually plays 5 h3. It's a transposition to 1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nc3 c6 4 Nf3 d5 ( 5 h3 ) when maybe white would have preferred a sharper alternative at move 4. Yeah white is better here too but there is some theory after 5 ... Nf6.

After the careful move 3 Nd2 white doesn't need to know anything to get a plus against 3 ... g6.

Now a question for you. In the Fantasy with 3 f3 , how does white respond to 3 ... g6 ? Is it 4 Nc3 or something else?

There are many other lines of this Gambit as well.

#Something off-topic: I find *c6* much satisfying than Nf6 or d5. Is it due to its inherent flexible nature of transposing lines. Like you could get a slav, or even the caro kann itself! Moreover if they play the London, would the g6-fianchetto setup work well against it?

The above comment is for 1 d4. Surprising how it didn't get added up there upon me typing!

Back to the OP. I have a friend on here who doesn't push himself forward on the forums but is a fount of knowledge and a thoroughly good chap. He messaged me the following which I think is well worth sharing (his permission to do so having been sought and granted)... "... Against [1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5] 3 Nc3 Black has one quite major alternative to capturing on e4 and that is 3...g6. In fact, many players use the 3 Nd2 move order to avoid this line. The move 3...g6 has the reputation of being less effective against 3 Nd2 but that doesn't mean it's anything for White to worry about against 3 Nc3, either. ... [After 3 Nc3 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 h3 Nf6 6 e5 Ne4 7 Nxe4 dxe4 8 Ng5 c5 9 Bc4 0-0 10 Nxe4 cxd4 11 f4,] White has the better chances in a complicated struggle. ..." - GM Joe Gallagher (2002)

Black is blocking his light-squared bishop from being developed. That's not a good move by black

Yeah one person played that OTB against me in the Tal variation (they lost bishop)

Please show me that one of possible