Thoughts on 1.Nc3

Says the guy who tries to claim that there's a difference between 1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 and 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 c6 ...

You've convinced us. We will all learn the entire 30ish moves French Nc3 lines or Caro-Kann to prepare for 1Nc3 because Nc3 has no significance. It will also save us from having to play Nf6 against 1 Nc3 d5 2 d4.

Have any particular line in the French Nc3 for black beyond move 2? Are we supposed to be learning and playing Winawer? Rubinstein? Fort Knox? Burn? Steinitz? Or some other masochism of the French.

It really is very simple. In what way does 1.Nc3 have any independent significance against Black's standard replies? The fact that White has played 1.Nc3 doesn't suddenly create a new opening in the vast majority of cases, only a different move order (this is most definitely the case with 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 c6/e6 - just a standard line in the Caro-Kann and the French, while 1.Nc3 d5 2.d4 is the Richter-Veresov). Furthermore, in many cases it doesn't even fit very well with the opening it transposes into, such as 1.Nc3 d5 2.f4 or 1.Nc3 d5 2.Nf3. Quite simply, most White players avoid 2.Nc3 after 1.f4 d5 or 1.Nf3 d5 because it isn't particularly good compared to say 2.b3 or 2.Nf3 in the case of Bird-Larsen/Bird or 2.g3 in the case of the Reti. The fact that you can play it doesn't mean it all of a sudden becomes a new opening or that the game takes on an independent character. A line like 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 h6 is still a Ruy Lopez, just as Zvyagintsev's 1.e4 c5 2.Na3 is still a Sicilian. The fundamental character of the positions that arise still take on the quality of those openings, regardless of the unusual move.

[Sigh ...] I didn't say that, did I? 1.Nc3 d5 2.d4 is just a Richter-Veresov, and why shouldn't Black reply 2...Nf6 to that? It would be perfectly normal.

No one's forcing you to learn 30 moves in any of the French variations you mention, or in the Caro-Kann or even to play those lines against 1.Nc3. The point is that 1.Nc3 has no independent significance should Black decide to play his normal Caro-Kann or French or Queen's Pawn Opening setup (starting with 1...d5), or say a Sicilian Dragon/King's Indian setup after 1...c5 and a quick Nf6, d6, g6 and Bg7 (not necessarily in that specific order). The game will still develop along French, the Caro-Kann, the Sicilian, King's Indian etc. lines. The point is that 1.Nc3 doesn't do anything against whatever Black typically plays against 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.f4 or 1.Nf3. (I'm now assuming that Black doesn't cooperate with White's wishes by playing 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 - which I suppose is what White hopes for when playing 2.e4.) In some lines, such as Bird's Opening, it would even be rather pointless to have played Nc3 instead of the more normal b3 or Nf3.

I'll be all agog!

idk in what universe this could possibly count as a proper french, as it can be arrived via many move orders, but this would be the move order of interest. 1.nc3 d5 2.e4 e6 3.g3 where the most common move for black is ...nf6 then 4.e5 nfd7 5.f4 transposes.

like in this game Nimzowitsch-Alekhine 1926

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1007507

Yeah, 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 e6 3.g3 is such a great subvariation of the French Defence, can't think why it isn't all the rage. You support it by a game which is basically a KIA setup against Black's French Defence, but with the knight going to c3 instead of d2 and where Black is goes wrong deep in the middlegame, missing the win around move 30, and blundering away the game a few moves later.

You still don't get our point, do you? Where is the independent significance of 1.Nc3?

kind of hard to get what point if any. you are making if you are going to keep comparing every line i show you with some other line based on superficial similarities.  you are completely ignoring the independent value that 1.the early f4 provides as opposed to having to move the f3 knight and 2.how in almost every KIA knight on goes to d2, where here, you regroup va e2, which allows unique hops via f4-f5 and nf4 for example.

but its easy to just repeat the same nonsense, about independent value IF you stop not looking at the position.  but you have more things to worry about, like improving your rating, until then this master is done imparting free knowledge in this one.

Good grief, you support your argument with a game where White was gradually outplayed before Black blundered, long after the opening had finished, and you start lecturing me on improving my rating? (FYI, we're about the same strength.) You're arguing from the standpoint of saying that whether you play Nc6 or Nbd7 in the King's Indian makes a difference as to whether it should be called a King's Indian or not.

DeirdreSkye and I have both reiterated several times that there's nothing wrong with 1.Nc3, but nor does it lead to a specific opening, but rather it just tends to transpose to some other opening. Hence 'no independent significance' as opposed to say, Grob, Bird, Reti etc. Can we at least agree on that point?

I personally think that 1.Nc3 is a bad move because at the start of the game we usually want to control the center

BuffyLou: I'm sure that one of the main reasons it's not played more often ...

im not gonna keep on supporting a circle jerk of idiocy.

I personally think that 1.Nc3 is a bad move because at the start of the game we usually want to control the center, ..... Oh my lord, 1.nf3 doesnt exist then? 

1.Nc3 is a good choice for club players under 2000 ELO..... who comes up with this nonsense?

for all the geniuses out there that insist that 1.nc3 has no independent value, please enlighten me what opening this fascinating line comes from. i would love to know what name to give it. French, caro, another offshoot of the center counter?

It's no wonder we rarely see anyone above 2000 comment in the forums. Too much nonsense.

Not sure what to call it but white's little adventure comes to a full stop after 9.Nxa8 with the blow 9..Ne5!

how cheeky, ne5 makes black go from a very complex equality to over a pawn down after kf1

Doh!!

darkunorthodox88: FFS, you seem to understand and concede my point, but continue to argue. Many, many postings ago I said that 1.Nc3 has no independent significance unless Black cooperates, and you've just given several examples where Black does just that. But if Black just develops normally, White has no real way of avoiding those main openings. Then you can play as unorthodox as you like, but you're still playing against one of those main openings. It's pointless to continue if you can't see that.

Secondly, 1.Nf3 immediately controls two squares in the center (d4 and e5), whereas 1.Nc3 only controls e4, it only has pseudo-control over d5. After 1.Nf3 Black has to prepare e5 if he wants to play, whereas 1.Nc3 doesn't prevent either move.

Thirdly, I'm not going to quibble with your statistics, since as you say the transpositions include all the manners in which those games in the statistics begin (conceivably many Scandinavian players also go 1.e4 d5 2.Nc3 d4) - and the figures I've seen also vary considerably (in one corpus I saw, 2...d4 was only Black's fifth most populare alternative and consisted a few hundred games, whereas French and Caro-Kann style replies numbered in their thousands). However, to my knowledge most theoreticians frown on 2...d4, and I'm not surprised to see that it scores worse than other Black alternatives, not least 2...e6 and 2...c6.

Last, but not least, being a US NM doesn't make you God ;-)

I for one appreciate your input. Thanks for taking the time to engage with us patzers.

@BonTheCat -- 2...d4 is the critical move. Smerdon's Scandinavian actually recommends 2...d4. Which theoreticians are you talking about, specifically? 

If it scores worse for black, it is not because it is theoretically worse.  More likely, it is because white has studied and knows the positions better. If I understand correclty, your point is that because black can transpose into known waters, Nc3 doesn't matter... but black in this case is willingly choosing lines where he has to fight for equality, rather than seizing the initiative and making white prove equality. There is something to be said about the practicality of this approach, but you seem to be conflating practicality with theoretical significance.