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~:
In that mainline it looks to this patzer that Black could eventually play e3 and really strangle White's light square bishop.
It's not a Grandmaster opening of course, although Morozovic did once play it against Kasparov. However I believe that it's excellent for the average to good club player - i.e. the majority.
I think that many club players make the mistake of trying to play Grandmaster openings without really understanding them, and suffer in their results because of this.
There are a number of advantages to playing 1.Nc3 :-
1) It's obvious perfectly sound and sensible - unlike some other attempts to get off the beaten path like 1.g4. It develops a piece towards the centre, and 1...d5 is by no means any sort of refutation. How can it be on move 1?
2) Tactically it can be very tricky for an unprepared Black player. Also there are some important strategic themes that he or she needs to understand.
3) Despite this, few players bother preparing anything against it. Learning and getting experience of this opening will therefore put the White player at a considerable advantage. No need to test who knows the most up to date developments on the Najdorf, Slav etc. And on that point, how many club players with their busy lives away from chess have the time to learn what they really ought to if they are to play an opening like that?
4) Psychological it's a good weapon. Some Black players have it in their head that it must be bad, and will therefore go all out to 'refute' it - often with disasterous consequences.
5) It's a surprise. It takes people out of their comfort zone on move 1.
All in all a good opening for those who would rather get away from the herd and prey on it, rather than be a part of it. Lots of fun too.
In the Netherlands we had once a player named van Geet that played this opening all the time and won many games with it.
@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.
Yes 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.Ne2 and later the knigt goes to g3 I have often seen.
You didn't upset me. I takes rather more than that. No need to be sorry - deeply or otherwise. Just be careful when you're around 1.Nf3 fans. You'll have a job of persuading them that the wonderful game of chess becomes a stone-cold draw due to one sensible-looking knight move on move one.
Perhaps you should take a look of pretty much every comment posted here with a distance - especially at some kind of semi-trollish that I post.
However, among strong GMs 1.Nf3 as white is normally used when playing for a draw, as far as I know.
I thouth this treath was about 1.Nc3
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~:
In that mainline it looks to this patzer that Black could eventually play e3 and really strangle White's light square bishop.
5...d3 is met by 6.Qf3, and if Black tries to hang on to the pawn with Bc4, White can interfere with b3 followed by c4, winning it. After the White knight develops at f3, White presumably just has to make sure d3 doesn't work.
1.Nc3 is good for occasional surprise weapon. As a regular opening weapon, I won't play or recommend it. 2...d5 is the best response.
Not much I do not know about 1.Nc3
Basically at club level it is good like OP said. Often black can be tricked into playing stuff they do not know, and it is good to force them to think from move 1 especially with todays ever quicker time limits
First I want to say that I always liked everything unorthodox. But in praxis , most of the unorthodox openings are actually more orthodox than I would like.
The transpositions after 1.Nc3 is not a problem of semantics. After 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 c6 it is Caro Kan either you like it or not. After 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 e6 3.g3 it is French defense either you like it or not. You can call it anything you want , it doesn't change the fact that it is French. Black can play 3...dxe4 and transpose to Rubinstein or 3...Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 and transpose to La Bourdonais.
According to the logic of "semantics" after 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e6 , Blackmar Demer gambit players can claim that this is not French defense But Blackmar Diemer declined. Sure they can claim anything they want but the fact doesn't change: It is French defense.
The same is more or less the problem with other unusual first moves like 1.c3 or 1.e3. You start playing something unorthodox and out of the book and you end up playing something orthodox and in the book.
this obsession with semantics is entirely worthless to a practicing player. an opening is decided by what both players play. virtually all lines in the french and caro involve an early d4 and those that dont, rarely resemble these specific setups. That alone is all an offbeat cares for. It is unconventional? Yes, is it playable? Yes, does it lead to dynamic non-dry position? Yes
then WHY IN THE WORLD would it matter what you call it? its a point that even if true, is entirely devoid of value.
You are also forgetting to mention that the original move order of these "transpositions" leaves black with more flexibility. for example 1.e4 e6 2.nc3 and black here is not obligated to play d5. a big part of playing openings with transpositional values is to maximize the chance of getting the lines YOU want as opposed to giving your opponent freeway. Another example is 1.nc3 c5. black smugly thinks to himself that white's only real move is 2.e4 when in fact, as "knight on the left" shows, some of the most interesting lines, happen when black DOESNT play e4 for a while. Same with 1.nc3 e5 2.nf3 nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.nxd4 and here way too many knockouts have been earned by white thanks to black players thinking this is a scotch. It is not! 4...bc5 and 4...nf6 is often played expecting 5.e4 only to be met with the nasty surprises of 5.be3!? and 5.bg5 respectively.
it is in fact players like you that do not comprehend 1.nc3's independent value that i score the easiest points from in OTB. so convinced white has no better plan than to tranpose to "opening they know" of choice only to be swiped of the board for not noticing the unique possibilities of the board, thanks to this auto-pilot mentality.
I do not believe that anyone who started with the first move being Nc3 blamed or credited the outcome of their game due to this first move.
It would seem to me that the easiest line against 1.Nc3 is this:
A Caro-Kann in which black hasn't needed to play c6. Also, black could transpose to the actual Caro-Kann, avoiding the lines @darkunorthodox88 suggested - what does white play then instead? I don't see any sensible deviations though I'm probably missing something.
It would seem to me that the easiest line against 1.Nc3 is this:
A Caro-Kann in which black hasn't needed to play c6. Also, black could transpose to the actual Caro-Kann, avoiding the lines @darkunorthodox88 suggested - what does white play then instead? I don't see any sensible deviations though I'm probably missing something.
There really aren't any, and the same goes for the French. White can't really avoid any of the mainstream openings. 1.Nc3 has no real independent significance.
There really aren't any, and the same goes for the French. White can't really avoid any of the mainstream openings. 1.Nc3 has no real independent significance.
So because a move can be declined it has no real independent significance? Hmm...so if I hang my queen for 5 moves, there is no independent significance to that because I cant avoid you not taking it. Good to know. Next time my opponent does so, I'll say 'Nice try to make an unorthodox move but I know I dont have to take it!'...and then not take it just to show them. What a winning attitude you have!
It would seem to me that the easiest line against 1.Nc3 is this:
A Caro-Kann in which black hasn't needed to play c6. Also, black could transpose to the actual Caro-Kann, avoiding the lines @darkunorthodox88 suggested - what does white play then instead? I don't see any sensible deviations though I'm probably missing something.
Yes, you missed the Van Geet move 4.Ng3
Hmm, after 4.Ng3 black has many options and it feels like he has totally achieved his aims from the opening. What is white's idea here? Looking through a database it looks like white usually plays a combination of Bc4 and d3, but still that doesn't seem to pose black any difficulties. What do you think as a 1.Nc3 player (if you are)?
There really aren't any, and the same goes for the French. White can't really avoid any of the mainstream openings. 1.Nc3 has no real independent significance.
So because a move can be declined it has no real independent significance? Hmm...so if I hang my queen for 5 moves, there is no independent significance to that because I cant avoid you not taking it. Good to know. Next time my opponent does so, I'll say 'Nice try to make an unorthodox move but I know I dont have to take it!'...and then not take it just to show them. What a winning attitude you have!
I don't see why you're comparing the French/Caro to hanging your queen, or how they have anything to do with 'declining' a move. To decline something means that something must have been on offer in the first place.
Very interesting that I come across this thread, considering that I've recently picked up Smerdon's take on the Scandinavian and I experimented with it at the Haags Weekendtoernooi (The Hague Weekend tourmanent) last week.
My only win (typically) I played against Aad de Bruijn (national rating 1952) whom decided to play 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.Nf3!?, which is quite annoying for Portuguese players (3.d4 Bg4) so I ended up playing the main line with 3....Nxd5.
Post game, he admitted to me that he had been part of the group of Dutch players, including Van Geet himself(!), that largely experimented with 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4, so was wondering why he didn't opt to play 2.Nc3 against my Scandinavian: he said he was not entirely certain he'd remember all subtleties, but he would have known more than me at least! I enjoyed the story as I am intrigued by chess history and this is one of the few openings with a mainstream in the Netherlands (besides the Lion Defense, the Dutch Defense isn't even Dutch by nature 
).
As my thoughts on that main line: it's annoying. It gives Black an entirely different game than he wants out of a Scandinavian and is pretty much out of book after 1.Nc3. Black has more space and initiative, but has to be careful to overextend; it's basically a Mexican setup with a tempo, which is dangerous, not necessarily better.
Very interesting that I come across this thread, considering that I've recently picked up Smerdon's take on the Scandinavian and I experimented with it at the Haags Weekendtoernooi (The Hague Weekend tourmanent) last week.
My only win (typically) I played against Aad de Bruijn whom had the fortunate privilege to experiment with the Van Geet opening with the actual Van Geet in the past. Just as typical however, he decided to play 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.Nf3!?, which is quite annoying for Portugese players (3.d4 Bg4) so I ended up playing the main line with 3....Nxd5.
Post game, he admitted to me that he had been part of the group of players, including Van Geet, that largely experimented with 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4, so was actually unsure why he didn't opt to play 2.Nc3 against my Scandinavian.
As my thoughts on that main line: it's annoying. It gives Black an entirely different game than he wants out of a Scandinavian and is pretty much out of book after 1.Nc3. Black has more space and initiative, but has to be careful to overextend.
How is it completely different after something like this:
To decline something means that something must have been on offer in the first place.
It is true that I havent faced the suggested offer. 1 Nc3 d5 and now its 2 d4 100% of the time vs me because they arent THAT crazy to play 2 e4 and spot me enough eval to hang them. But if an opportunity is available, its not refuted by doing nothing about it.
darkunorthodox88: 'is 1.nc3 d5 2.e4 just a line of the center counter, or the Van Geet Opening. The answer is "Yes"'
Ehr, no. If Black plays 2...c6, we're in a Caro-Kann, if Black plays 2...e6 it's a French defence. 1.Nc3 really has very little independent significance.
im not going to repeat myself, if you are not going to read