I don't see how Nf6 fails to develop anything (??) and how it weakens kingside (!!).
I would just say that Nf6 has the same pros than 2.Nf3, with the drawback that it doesnt protect against the threat created by Nf3...
Is it really a problem? Chess is a concrete game and more analysis proves that 2...Nf6 (Petroff Defence) is a very good move, not clear inferior to Nc6.
For example if black plays Nc6, as opposite to Nf6, we could argue that :
- Nc6 doesnt develop kingside so doesnt do anything to make short castle quick.
- Nc6 is a defensive move, doesn't create a threat
Once again, chess is a concrete game and we cannot give an assessment after 2 moves.
But at least, Nc6 blocks the threat...
2...Nc6 and 2...Nf6 are both fine, your books are wrong.
Hi
I am a little puzzled with what I am reading in some books regarding chess openings which they seem to suggest that White’s move Kf3 is “the best move on the board”
Here is the typical scenario I am seeing.
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
Now, in many chess books, where openings are being discussed, Nf3 is often described as “the best move on the board!”, with the reason given that it,
1) Develops with a threat (the black pawn on e5)
2) Develops a piece
3) Protects/threatens more than one centre square
4) Protects h2
5) Consider a real strength with regards to protecting the King post-castling
Yes, this I totally understand.
But what is puzzling me is that if Black chooses 2. ... Nf6, it appears to be classed as inferior (to, say, 2. ... Nc6). Reasons given are that Nf6,
1) Fails to develop anything
2) Weakens the King’s side
Why is it when white moves Nf3 it’s considered great. Yet when black does the exact same thing on his side of the board, it’s considered inferior and “weakens the King’s side? Didn't White do the exact same thing?