I don't think 2...Nc6 is bad, the main reason it isn't played that often is because blacks plans in the KIA normally involve c5 or c6. You're not going to find a line that refutes 2...Nc6
KIA - playing against 2. Nc6?
Sort:
Here's Mamedov defending that line. So good players do use it. What's more, according to at least one large online dbase, this variation scores over 50% for *black*.
The line in the first post is "bad" precisely because White can play d4 transposing into a Catalan-type position where the knight is horribly misplaced on c6 (though his light-squared bishop not being blocked in is some sort of consolation). If White doesn't do that, then there's nothing wrong with Nc6.
In the move order in the Mamedov game, White doesn't have to enter that reversed Pirc position with, for example, 3. c4.
Tenna wrote:
The line in the first post is "bad" precisely because White can play d4 transposing into a Catalan-type position where the knight is horribly misplaced on c6 (though his light-squared bishop not being blocked in is some sort of consolation). If White doesn't do that, then there's nothing wrong with Nc6.
In the move order in the Mamedov game, White doesn't have to enter that reversed Pirc position with, for example, 3. c4.
thanks for pointing that out.
ok I do know that this line is very bad for black and 2000+ people never play it against the KIA. chessgames.com shows 63% win for white.however I can't browse those games and I can't figure it myself.
so my question is why is the variation so bad? and can white do against it?
here is variation