The Dark Knight System 1...Nc6

4.b5 is a tricky move there. I would edit your post to write what you actually mean.

Regarding the general area of "crappy openings", they're not as crappy as you probably think (though they are not best), and if you're well-prepared with master games and engine ideas, I say go for it.

Oh - and there's always a problem with learning the "crappy openings", that you'll end up getting over 2000, 2100, 2200, and then assuming you're known as the "e4 Nc6" guy, it allows your opponents to prepare very specifically, and may end up with the opposite effect from what is intended.

That, and the artificial ceiling that you'd end up with - the mechanism for example if you're a Budapest Gambit player exclusively that your rating will peak at 2150 maybe, where you're actually a 2250 player.

WTF?!? talk about going off on a tangent. Think it might have been sarcasm of some sort but something tells me we may never know.

Who said anything about "crappy openings" and what's this nonsense about rating ceilings?  There is no question that my rating would be lower if I did not use 1...Nc6 as my main weapon, particularly against 1.d4.  Also, there are 1...Nc6 players at all levels up to super-GM. 

The last time I played a GM in a tournament, he found out I was going to play 1...Nc6, and he played 1.c4 so he wouldn't have to play against the Kevitz System, Dark Knight Pirc, or Bogoljubow Defence.  I agree with his decision.  It is not very practical to play into a 1...Nc6 player's main preparation.

Maybe 1...Nc6 shouldn't be lumped in with the other shortcut openings, many of which are varying shades of crappiness.

The rating ceiling applies very much to the general problem of students looking for a shortcut to doing work, which often leads them to openings which narrow the focus early, like the Budapest, Albin, Englund, etc. One of the main draws for students of these openings are the traps within them (Nd3#!!), but they will stop working at some point. And, present company excluded of course, from my experience with players who look for shortcuts to opening preparation, they often hit a ceiling because the entire style of that opening is not conducive to really getting good, and which is what they built their game on.

Can someone explain this to me?

Nevermind, it appears that I have once again been fooled into trusting chess.com's database. Chessbase shows that white scores 53% after 3...e5 and 46.9% after 3...Nce7.

That still means black is scoring slightly better (by 0.1%) in the position without the extra move, which is still slightly strange.

And Malachi, what are you recommending against this line:

Actually, I can explain that, at least in part.  In the position that starts with 1.e4 Nc6, white very often plays 4.c4, which damages his position by weakening the dark squares, or 4.f4, which loses to 4...Ng6.  In fact, one or the other of these bad moves are chosen almost half the time.  If it is the other player's turn, neither of these mistakes are possible. 

My guess is black should be playing 3...Bg4 instead of transposing to a bad Philidor's

It's why I prepare 1...c5 1...e5 and sometimes 1...Nf6 against 1.e4, 1...f5 and 1...Nf6 (with either a Queen's Indian, Hedgehog, or Bogo-Nimzo Indian) against 1.d4, and Hedgehog against the rest (but 1...e5 and 2...d5 against 1.g3) and 1...e5 and an eventual ...h5 against 1.g4.)

"Can someone explain this to me?"

That's a mainline Van Geet.  The idea is to exploit weaknesses created by black's pawn moves. 

Edit: oh and of course a reversed Caro-Kahn without ...c6 committed agaisnt 1.Nc3. 

And here Roman says .. Its hard for white to find a good plan.

 James Schuyler , Jame Levine,  Christoph Wisnewski  are these the same person ?  I have read else where that James Schuyler changed his name?   

it would have been nice had you used a move engine that would generate the other moves your recommended.    

Does the kindle version have the game engine embedded to go through the lines and games ?

I bought the book a long time ago, and put it on the side without being impressed. But after reading the author's other book (Your opponent is overrated), I was so impressed that I decided to get back to DKS. I was a bit scared of getting too many open games (scotch). Still haven't faced it yet. The lines are sound. I like the idea of 1. d4 Nc6 very much: many people play 2.c4, hoping for a Chigorin. Instead, 2...e5 is shocking and leads to uncharted territories. Likewise, I took up 1.Nc3 as white after buying the excellent "Knight on the left". Against 1...d5, I vary depending on my mood: 2.d4 towards a Veresov, or 2.e4 for Van Geet's opening. DKS + 1.Nc3 are excellent to get into your own ground. I also wanted to say that "Your opponent is overrated" became one of my top favourite book (and I own hundreds). It completely changed my way of viewing chess overall. Applying the principles of the book made me win 200 Elo points! Great job @Schuyler James !!

Glad to see another queen knight fan! i like the positions after 1.e4 nc6 2.d4 e5 except giving white the choice to tranpose to something as relatively mainstream as the Scotch never appealed to me, which is why i play 2.d5 instead.  i still get to play 1.d4 nc6 2.c4 e5 though!

Between Schyler's book an wineswki i find the former far more sound. Winewswki suggests some lousy stuff sometimes, and in other places misses too many critical lines. I do however play 2.d4 d5 nimzowitsch and alternate between 2.d6 and 2.e6 vs 2.nc3., so im not stuck with the dark square strategy. 

my only problem with Schyler's book

- i am not quite convinced of the books suggestions in the 1.d4 nc6 2.d5 chapters ,specifically the fxe6 variations.There is even a configuration by white, where he goes for a e4-f4-g3 bg2-nc3 qe2 formation that can leave black in a very ugly position. I prefer dxe6 early queen trade line which is how Short plays it, and GM Stevic has an amazing score with the ending position.  If black really doesnt want the endgame, he should just plays 2nb8

-I am not too fond of his suggestion vs 2.nc3 involving going for e5 if white plays f4. e6 as suggesting earlier is one solution, but perhaps a symmetrical Vienna, is not such a terrible idea, since if white goes for a classical setup, playing it like a reversed g3 vienna makes a lot more sense without the c3-d4 threat looming anymore.

- i never payed much attention to the filler chapter to make 1.nc6 woork agaisnt everything. I think agaisnt the first 4 big moves is good enough.

A question about the 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5 3.dxe5 Nxe5 Nf3 line, is Nxf3 the only option for Black? Is a system with Qf6, Bb4-c5 or Bc5, d6, Nge7-g6 also playable?

Nxf3 probably if you want a less complicated opening but at your level I don't think that adds up.

From my perspective I'd think Qf6 is best. White will likely play Nc3 soon and when Nc3 gets played you want to play Bb4. Playing Bb4+ first results in c3 and Bd6 is in my eyes a weaker development square. After you've developed your DSBishop you can play d6 and develop your other pieces.

But then again you're probably higher rated then me.