1.e4 Nc6 2...d6 is somewhat passive, 2...d5 somewhat suspect, 2...Nf6 somewhat bad, 2...f5 somewhat ridiculous, but luckily enough we have left 2...e5(!) out...
You left out 2.e6 3.d5. Is the Advanced variation as hopeless as the database makes it look?
If your dumb enough, and for damn sure I am, you can make it turn out exactly like a Colorado Gambit, maybe even worse. That damn opening is following me around. I think i unlocked a whole new level of stupidity here.
1.e4 Nc6 2...d6 is somewhat passive, 2...d5 somewhat suspect, 2...Nf6 somewhat bad, 2...f5 somewhat ridiculous, but luckily enough we have left 2...e5(!) out...
You left out 2.e6 3.d5. Is the Advanced variation as hopeless as the database makes it look?
If your dumb enough, and for damn sure I am, you can make it turn out exactly like a Colorado Gambit, maybe even worse. That damn opening is following me around. I think i unlocked a whole new level of stupidity here.
Aren't we supposed to discuss about 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 and not 2.Nc3 (which is ok if white plays Vienna)?
So once again (i already mentionned it...) :
Have u ever seen an advance french with Nc6 instead of c5? Not me...
I've been using stockfish to play around with the French advance with a knight on c6. I'm ok with the resulting positions. The engine analysis has been decent, -.5 is usually the worse case scenario. I'm going to experiment with it for a while, but OTB, I'm sticking with the French.
But I just might play 1.a3 with the white pieces and play the Nimzowitsch Defense in a game. It's ridiculous but with no Bb4 available... I got a fun plan for 2.Nf6 
Lev Psakhis, one of the foremost experts on the French, wrote a pretty comprehensive tome on the Advance French. He gave 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 pride of place, but he also analysed five other options for Black, including 3...Qd7. He did NOT cover 3...Nc6.
My copy of ECO makes no mention of 3...Nc6, neither does Nunn's Chess Openings book.
While it's a legal move, it doesn't look very promising, even as a surprise weapon. It goes against pretty much everything Black is trying to accomplish in the Advance French. It's no wonder that in ChessBase, 3...Nc6 has a nearly 100% score for White. I couldn't find a single serious game played by a GM as Black.
Having said all that, this isn't quite so straight-forward since White has already played Nf3. This transposes into a line that still favors White, but that Jobava has scored well with. Here's his game against Karjakin in the line that's he's repeated several times:
Lev Psakhis, one of the foremost experts on the French, wrote a pretty comprehensive tome on the Advance French. He gave 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 pride of place, but he also analysed five other options for Black, including 3...Qd7. He did NOT cover 3...Nc6.
My copy of ECO makes no mention of 3...Nc6, neither does Nunn's Chess Openings book.
While it's a legal move, it doesn't look very promising, even as a surprise weapon. It goes against pretty much everything Black is trying to accomplish in the Advance French. It's no wonder that in ChessBase, 3...Nc6 has a nearly 100% score for White. I couldn't find a single serious game played by a GM as Black.
Having said all that, this isn't quite so straight-forward since White has already played Nf3. This transposes into a line that still favors White, but that Jobava has scored well with. Here's his game against Karjakin in the line that's he's repeated several times:
And why the hell white should place a knight on c3 under the move order 1.e4 e6 d.d4 d5 3.e5 Nc6?
...
And why the hell white should place a knight on c3 under the move order 1.e4 e6 d.d4 d5 3.e5 Nc6?
White would choose this line because it should lead to an edge, and because 4.Nf3 Nge7 5.c3 (for example) doesn't lead to a demonstrably larger edge for White.
Your condescending tone suggests you know more. Please, enlighten us as to why Nc3 is so very bad for White.
Well I told myself that I would try every opening I'm interested for a short period while I'm lower rated and then specialize in one of them when I reach about 1500. I'm just gonna bite the bullet and immerse myself in e5 sometime soon. If I like it and I get decent with it, I can always play Nc6 first if I want to play the Nimzowitsch. Still gonna give this a go for just a couple of weeks since i've already got a lot of it neatly organized. Damn I gotta replace the Danish Gambit with the Evan's Gambit and Max Lange Attacktoo. 
Without many database games at all, I had to rely heavily on an engine for this, but here's a sample of what I intend to do.
You're spending way too much time on the opening. For the next week, every time you think about studying the opening, go do twenty minutes' worth of tactics instead.
You'll see improvement in your game after only one week!
Last i checked my tactical rating was 600 points higher than my actual rating. I still do tactics but it seems like that's a red flag that i might have a hole elsewhere i my game.
Regardless, I enjoy looking into openings so that's why I do it. It's a part of chess that really interests me. I know I know, play by principles. Whatever, man. My goal at the moment is to learn. Maybe it causes me to win less, but it's how I want to do it.
Not that I asked for your advice or anything. Ma Ma Ma Mind ya bidness!
...
And why the hell white should place a knight on c3 under the move order 1.e4 e6 d.d4 d5 3.e5 Nc6?
White would choose this line because it should lead to an edge, and because 4.Nf3 Nge7 5.c3 (for example) doesn't lead to a demonstrably larger edge for White.
Your condescending tone suggests you know more. Please, enlighten us as to why Nc3 is so very bad for White.
Yeah as already noted, c3 just leads to an improved French advance for White. The White bishop can go to d3 now with free attacking chances since Black can never pressure d4 enough to do anything about it. I remember a game played by Nimzowitch in which he played against a lower-rated opponent. The position was reached after 4...b6 5.c3 a5 and although engines don't like it, it's not losing...
Hey Comeaux,
Check out the thread below. I read it when i first was drawn to experimenting with the Nimzowitsch. It also may have your answer to 2.Nf3!
He also showed some analysis he already did for you using stockfish where Black is better in many positions! I followed his suggestions and white plays into them many times. Now it's just a matter if you like to play those type of positions.
Nimzovich is trash, go learn e5
you revived a finished thread for this???
i played the nimzowitsch with good success for many years (as well as 1.d4 nc6)
1.the tony miles way of playing this defense has been refuted since the early 90's, 1.e4 nc6 2.nf3 d6 3.d4 nf6 4.nc3 bg4 5.be3 e6(the original idea, if 6...e5?! as suggested by mestrovic may be okayish, if 7.d5 ne7 with plans for c6 doesnt look too bad, and if 7.bb5 believe it or not 7.bd7!?! is actually ok despite looking bad ) 6. h3 bh5 (bxf3 is actually best, but is a free bishop pair and just worse) 7.d5! is the refutation, for example exd5 8.exd5 ne5 9.g4 bg6 10..nd2 with f4 coming or 8...bxf3 9.qxf3 ne5 qe2! with 0-0-0 coming is BAD for black.
actually, 5.be2 with similar ideas of d5 is also refutation material, but 5.be3 is more accurate. There e5 is also more accurate than e6.
2.the "nimzo-pirc" is objectively the best continuation that doesnt tranpose to king pawn openings. The dark system book is actually computer checked thoroughly in these chapters, and black is pretty much fine. This move order is quite good for black enters a pirc where trades of the early nc6 commitment for the elimination of the dangerous austrian attack. Many of the positions end up looking like a KID with the pawn on c2 which is an improvement.
3. forget the colorado, anyone 2000+ that knows its busted can figure out the refutation OTB. Take the pawn, go for bb5- ne5- 0-0-re1-qe2 stuff and wreck black's pawn structure for not much.
4. only a player like Nimzowitsch can like such an ugly congested position but it is on the playable range. if white is careless, this can tranpose to a 3.nc3 nc6 french or guimard tarrasch, and black is doing well. so the only real challenging move is 4.e5 .the main concern is that white wont play for nc3 (for this allows bb4 easing the cramp) but c3. best is probably 4....f6 and if 5.nc3 or c3 then 5.fxe6, if 5.bd3?!, allows 5.nb4! and if 5.bb5 then bd7 and 6.nc3 then qe7 going for 0-0-0 , but if 6.0-0 you have this crazy line
with one hell of an endgame. i suggest you turn on your engine and see for yourself how surprisingly balanced this endgame is.
5.the so called el columpio is suspect .black has problems if he goes for nd5, for example 1.e4 nc6 2.nf3 nf6 3.e5 nd5 4.c4 nb6 5.d4 d6 6.e6! and white is just plain better. the columpio idea is 3...ng4 but after4.d4 d6 5.h3 nh6 6.nc3 its unclear what black can even do. for example 6.nc3 g6 7.g4! bg7 8.be3 with qd2 and 0-0-0 coming up.and black's bishop must be babysitting the misplaced h6 knight so no funny business on e5.
6. the 1.e4 d5 2.nf3 d5 is vastly different from 2.d4 d5 which is quite playable. after
with bd2 next and black is not gonna have a good time .if 7...a6, then 8.bxc6 bxc6 9.ne5 be8 10.qf3.
actually the engine suggests to forget 4.qa5 and go for 4...qd6 but the lines look like black is limping and cramped. for example, 5.d4 nf6 6.nb5 qd8 7.c4 a6 8. nc3 bg4 (what else? if bf5?, then d5 nb4 qa5+ is over, and e6 is too cramped) 9.d5 ne5 10.be2 with clear advantage for white (c4 is poisoned btw)
Has Comeaux been here since 2017?
Thanks for the interesting post, @darkunorthodox88. I look forward to perusing it when I have more time.
I know people say the opposite here, but I like Wisnesvsky's proposal in his book 2...Nf6 transposing to an Alekhine. The idea of Nimzowitsch defense is to provoke. So I agree with Wisnesvsky that the Alekhine is a good choice for the same reason to provoke. But I understand people who dislike the Alekhine defense. Each his opinion. 😊
The new Nimzovich book by Bauer recommends 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 Nf6 and g6 afaik.
I know people say the opposite here, but I like Wisnesvsky's proposal in his book 2...Nf6 transposing to an Alekhine. The idea of Nimzowitsch defense is to provoke. So I agree with Wisnesvsky that the Alekhine is a good choice for the same reason to provoke. But I understand people who dislike the Alekhine defense. Each his opinion. 😊
2...Nf6 transposes into a bad Alekhine defence, where Nc6 was played too soon.
1.e4 Nc6 2...d6 is somewhat passive, 2...d5 somewhat suspect, 2...Nf6 somewhat bad, 2...f5 somewhat ridiculous, but luckily enough we have left 2...e5(!) out...
f5 is not all that bad for blacks second move. Aww-rats had some success with it.