An old chess salt would find a way to win with Na3....believe you me
.
sodium attack
and 1 nc3 is weak but 1nf3 which prevents e5 is perfectly reasonable. 1 nc3 while being weak is obviously better than 1 na3. for logical reasons.
And 1.Nc3 is weak ?...because?....
I think you might have your tin foil hat wrapped on to tight.
It must be so awesome to be able to read minds! Black has yet to make a move, to formulate a method of defence or attack, yet you can call a single move by white as weak?! you and your much vaunted logic assumes that 1.Nc3 is used as entirely as an independent means of playing the opening. Such as 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.Ne2 and so on for instant.
As I said previously, logic based on subjective premises is little more than an extension of the myopic dogma you are famous for on chess.com.
While it is entirely off topic, I am sure the class would like to know how:
1.Nc3 c5 2.e4 (The Closed Sicilian)
1.Nc3 e5 2.e4 (Vienna Opening) and
1.Nc3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.Bg5 (Versov Opening)
Are all considered weak in your awesome mind’s eye?
And finally on the subject of:
>actually in your mind perhaps nf3 doesnt prevent e5. after all its merely dogma which causes us to care about whether we lose pawns.<
Don’t you think it is ironical that you question my mind and you’re the one flouting faulty logic to justify your banality.
The problem with the above is that it assumes that I disagree with all dogma and like you have been so far, you are wrong. Yes, I play some gambits but while I do I also agree that the meaningless sacrifice of pawns in silly gambits just for the hell of it is exactly that, silly
As to Durkin’s Attack. I think it is like most openings. It is perfectly playable in the right circumstances and against an appropriate opponent. I used to play 1.Na3 but 1…e5 2.Nc4 e4 got to be too much of a pain in the bum. So now I play 1.Nf3 (anything but e5) 2.Na3
Would anyone be offended if I pronounced it the Sojum Attache ? It sounds more, well romantic & inviting....
It's all attic salt anywayz....
....