Cool.
Thoughts on 1.Nc3
Sort:
The Dunst is fine, but the problem is that doesn't really have an independent character - it transposes to another opening after a few moves. Nc3 is a move played in most openings, and Black can typically play their normal opening setup. For instance, if you play the Slav or the Caro-Kann as Black, there really is very little scope for White to avoid those two openings (or in the case of the Slav, turning it into a Richter-Veresov Attack).
HotspurJr wrote:
I mean, I guess the question is ... what are you trying to accomplish with 1.Nc3?
It's not a particularly interesting or useful move on it's own - you often want your c-pawn on c3 or c4 - so it really depends what scheme of development you're aiming for. On it's own it's just not that interesting a move and clearly less logical than 1.e4, 1.d4, or 1.Nf3.
Just about anything is playable. What are you trying to accomplish?
1. You develop a piece
2. Attack e4
3. Attack d5
4. Attack b5
5. Prepare long castle
You are welcome
Heathcliffe256 wrote:
@TitanCG I'm sure that's perfectly playable, and certainly very provocative. Personally I prefer to go directly with 2.e4 against 1..d5 . I think 2.Nf3 can be a useful waiting move against a Black response like 1...Nf6 - just waiting to see how he or she sets up.>>>
I was beaten at our club in a 10 minute game by 2. e4 recently. In a ten minute game, I didn't have time to think it through. Looking at it again, the logical response is
1. Nc3 ...d5
2- e4 ... dc
because then we have a Caro-Kann where black hasn't needed to play ...c6, which means that black must be at least equal.
There's a very good, and extremely entertaining book on it, Knight on the Left by Harald Keilhack. He persuaded me to play it for a while, but I wasn't convinced by what is arguably the main line~:
Nov 20, 2018
0
#27
JohnnyKGB wrote:
it was my repertoire the last year.
I w0n a quickly game in a slow game with a inportant trap, against the e6 sicilian players
that isn't a trap, white has a slight advantage.
RonPaulsSteelBalls wrote:
EveryMansBestFriend wrote:
RonPaulsSteelBalls wrote:
Nc3 is very strong. Play it
You're not strong enough to tell why something, even the grob, is bad, let alone why something is good.
Or perhaps you are too rude and incompetent to listen to others without arrogantly insulting them or using what World Champions consider a winning opening.
As I said, the move has no real independent value. It basically transposes to a wellknown opening within a few moves.
FrogCDE έγραψε:
There's a very good, and extremely entertaining book on it, Knight on the Left by Harald Keilhack. He persuaded me to play it for a while, but I wasn't convinced by what is arguably the main line~:
This is the line Smurfo advocates for Black in his Scandinavian book.
And of course Playing a Caro (3...dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5) without the need of an early ...c6 is also fine for Black.
Nov 21, 2018
0
#30
yianniww wrote:
I’m a bit late but doesn’t the reti opening start with 1.Nf3?And I’m pretty sure that when he used it against Capablanca it didn’t end with a draw.
So? we are talking about the Van geet here
Nov 21, 2018
0
#31
FrogCDE wrote:
There's a very good, and extremely entertaining book on it, Knight on the Left by Harald Keilhack. He persuaded me to play it for a while, but I wasn't convinced by what is arguably the main line~:
I know it's an equal position but I rather have black
Nov 21, 2018
0
#32
melvinbluestone wrote:
@DeirdreSkye:
Thanks for the feedback, and the analysis. Very instructive.
I think it was Talleyrand, or maybe Churchill, who said "If you scratch the surface of a Van Geet, you'll find a Sicilian, or a French, or a Mestrovic, or something... ". I suppose it could be argued that 1.Nf3 just as readily transposes into a Ruy, or a Petroff, or a Sicilian. But the somewhat passive appearance of 1.Nc3 will always make it rather unappealing. Of course, there's nothing 'wrong' with it, but there doesn't seem to be anything especially 'right' with it, either.
That being said, I looked at the line 1.Nc3 d5, and now the noncommittal 2.e3 seems to keep things firmly in the 'independent Van Geet line' catagory (but I could be wrong about that..... may be a transposition from something). Black then usually continues 2...Nf6, when I think 3.f4 keeps thing interesting. On the patzer club level where I am, this can lead to a lot of fun stuff, especially in fast time controls.
I don't know if this was a blitz game or not.......
This blitz game is hilarious. I missed a win by inches! Well, you know, "For want of a nail...... " etc.
I'll use any excuse to post some of my ridiculous games........
1.Nf3 will rarely transpose to 1.e4 openings. Yes 1.Nf3 c5 2.e4 is possible, but no 1.Nf3 player will play this. Transpositions to 1.d4 openings (1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 for example) happen all the time
my137thaccount έγραψε:
melvinbluestone wrote:
@DeirdreSkye:
Thanks for the feedback, and the analysis. Very instructive.
I think it was Talleyrand, or maybe Churchill, who said "If you scratch the surface of a Van Geet, you'll find a Sicilian, or a French, or a Mestrovic, or something... ". I suppose it could be argued that 1.Nf3 just as readily transposes into a Ruy, or a Petroff, or a Sicilian. But the somewhat passive appearance of 1.Nc3 will always make it rather unappealing. Of course, there's nothing 'wrong' with it, but there doesn't seem to be anything especially 'right' with it, either.
That being said, I looked at the line 1.Nc3 d5, and now the noncommittal 2.e3 seems to keep things firmly in the 'independent Van Geet line' catagory (but I could be wrong about that..... may be a transposition from something). Black then usually continues 2...Nf6, when I think 3.f4 keeps thing interesting. On the patzer club level where I am, this can lead to a lot of fun stuff, especially in fast time controls.
I don't know if this was a blitz game or not.......
This blitz game is hilarious. I missed a win by inches! Well, you know, "For want of a nail...... " etc.
I'll use any excuse to post some of my ridiculous games........
1.Nf3 will rarely transpose to 1.e4 openings. Yes 1.Nf3 c5 2.e4 is possible, but no 1.Nf3 player will play this. Transpositions to 1.d4 openings (1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 for example) happen all the time
Still, you cannot know what is in a chessplayers' mind.
I have played 1.Nf3 c5 2.e4 many times as white, avoiding 1.e4 e5 stuff: I simply have trouble finding something constructive against the Petroff, and Berlin.
With 1.Nc3 there are a lot of funky lines. For example 1. Nc3 d5 2. e3 e5 3. Qh5!? or 1. Nc3 Nf6 2. g4!? Nxg4 3. e4 Nxf2!? 4.Kxf2 e5 with unclear positions, great to explore in friendly blitz games.
Nov 27, 2018
0
#35
the only line where i woudnt even bother trying to be original is agaisnt 1.nc3 nf6. agaisnt everything else, white can afford to be exotic without much risk. But i mean, Veserov's opening or a g3 vienna or the many unique lines of the alekhine transposition via 2.e4 d5 are not exactly mainstream either. They are somewhere between normal and fully unorthodox.
Nov 28, 2018
0
#36
I used to be interested in 1. Nc3, but mostly as a way to transpose to the Veresov, Vienna game, or Closed Sicilian. The main thing I disliked as a whole about it is blocking in the c-pawn, which isn't terrible, but that's why I started playing the English, which is now my favorite opening. I do play the Nimzowitsch defense though, 1. e4 Nc6. That's also why I've started to play the Sicilian a bit though.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
What would you do against 1...e6 and 2...d5
A joke? The side with the initiative can always throw it away with passive play, but why would the other side complain if they do that? Especially if black plays french here...white goes from negative eval to positive eval. Why would white care about that? Should I ask why black would play e6, when white can play the french exchange?
I'll remember that as black next time. I'll complain that I allowed white to play passively and am not under a brutal attack. Oh the misfortune!
Nov 28, 2018
0
#38
1.nc3 d5 2.e4 e6 3.g3 is what i play, aiming for nf6 4.e5 nfd7 f4, the point being, to play for d3 instead of d4, and natural moves like bg2, nf3 d3 0-0, and depending on how black plays, for me to alter slightly my play accordingly. Nimzowitsch got a great win from Alekhine with this line.
agaisnt 1.nc3 d5 2. e4 c6. white can choose between the romantic 3.qf3!? or 3.g3 or even 3.f4 but i prefer to transpose to the two knights caro with 3.nf3
Nov 29, 2018
0
#39
DeirdreSkye wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
1.nc3 d5 2.e4 e6 3.g3 is what i play, aiming for nf6 4.e5 nfd7 f4, the point being, to play for d3 instead of d4, and natural moves like bg2, nf3 d3 0-0, and depending on how black plays, for me to alter slightly my play accordingly. Nimzowitsch got a great win from Alekhine with this line.
agaisnt 1.nc3 d5 2. e4 c6. white can choose between the romantic 3.qf3!? or 3.g3 or even 3.f4 but i prefer to transpose to the two knights caro with 3.nf3
So in both cases you transpose to French La Bourdonais or a line of Caro Kan. Against 1...c5 I assume you transpose to Sicilian and against 1...e5 to Vienna or 3 knights . So why play 1.Nc3 and not 1.e4? 1.Nc3 seems like a "reduced options 1.e4" since everything you play from 1.Nc3 can be played from 1.e4 with significantly more options and flexibility(in La Bourdonais the bishop might be much better on d3 than on g2 and g3 might be a waste of tempo).
these lines in general are so rare that to say they belong to one system to another is a question of semantics. is 1.e4 nc6 2. d4 d5 3.exd5 qxd5 merely a line of the scandinavian or the original line of the nimzowitsch defense ( and tell any nimzo players they are just playing a scandi and they will chop your head of). is 1.nc3 d5 2.e4 just a line of the center counter, or the Van Geet Opening. The answer is "Yes"
my point stands. if you want to play original chess outside the confines of main theory, 1.nc3 is flexible enough to accommodate without giving you a worse game. and for acolytes of unorthodox openings, thats all i concern myself with. What label you put at the end of the day is ECO's business, not mine.
why would i play 1.e4 over 1.nc3? they are many positions i desire from white that i cant get from 1.e4 for example 1.nc3 e5 2.nf3 nc6 3.d4 (which i have a monstrous win percentage with, its better to not tranpose to scotch lines in this case) or of course 1.nc3 d5 2.e4 d5 is much more likely from the nc3 move order than from hoping my opponent will play Scandi and push (they more often try 2.dxe4 nxe4 qd5 anyway,)
i virtually never encounter 1.nc3 d5 2.e4 c6 interestingly enough so i dont get to play two knights often. and 1.nc3 c6 allows one to play jovaba style with 2.d4 3.bf4 aiming for 0-0-0 anyways.
I mean, I guess the question is ... what are you trying to accomplish with 1.Nc3?
It's not a particularly interesting or useful move on it's own - you often want your c-pawn on c3 or c4 - so it really depends what scheme of development you're aiming for. On it's own it's just not that interesting a move and clearly less logical than 1.e4, 1.d4, or 1.Nf3.
Just about anything is playable. What are you trying to accomplish?
Sorry but you have no idea