Not at all, I'm not saying it doesn't matter. I'm saying that it typically has no independent significance, which is rather different. 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 and we're in the Closed Scandinavian, having started out as a Van Geet/Dunst. This is my whole point.
As for the theoretical value of 2...d4 specifically, I seem to remember Pachman, Hort and Larsen saying that this type of structure tends to favour White because he's got levers, which are more powerful when Black is half a tempo behind (pushing many pawns instead of developing his pieces). If Smerdon consider it critical for the Scandinavian, that may very well be - but then, perhaps, we're discussing matters of taste. 2...d4 is very ambitious, for sure. However, we're still in a main-line opening ...
Thoughts on 1.Nc3
i dont even know what it means to say 1.nc3 d5 2.e4 e6 is a french without caring what comes after. does this mean, if black plays e6 and d5 , its a french no matter what?, does this mean 1.e4 e6 no matter what is a french? clearly not, for example 2.d4 b6 is owen's and 2...c5 is franco-benoni territory so that's obviously false. does it mean that after 1.e4 e6 2.xx no matter what is a french? then by that definition the 1.nc3 line is not a french.
So,what you Really mean, is that whenever you get e6 and d5, you have a french if white plays an early e4. but like my earlier point mentioned. this is a relatively moot point. this is really only of care to ECO and formal classification, and considering that many games do not have a clear classificiation precisely because these openings that can arise from like 3-5 different move orders plausibly (in the game shown for example, its called an alekhine defense line because the transposition begins early after 1.nc3 nf6 2.e4 d5 then after move 4 or so in the "french interpretation of that line) the fact it starts with 1.nc3 can even be used to argue that this is just a straight Dusnt opening by the same line of reasoning!
If there is any reason to legitimately think classifying this as a french line has any INTELLECTUAL imput to the conversation, it is that black most often assumes the structural formation of most french defenses in the 3.g3 line.But this ignores the fact d5-c5-e6 formations are so reliable in general as black as to border on being systems.
Tell me good sir. is "this" a french? since when was this a french? in move 7 where we can argue it formally transposed? what does that even mean??? at least here you can argue that the number of games that arise from this position are so often from 1.e4 e6 2.d3 or so lines that its hard to not at least argue for pragmatic reasons, but even the overwhelming dominance hypothesis of classification doesnt exactly apply to the line i suggested precisely because they are so many ways you can get it from so it resists being given any one class classification even for pragmatic purposes.
just like we can only call 1.e4 e6 2.nc3 a french AFTER we get more moves ( 2.b6 is not a french 2.c5 is not a french etc) 1.e4 e6 2.nc3 d5 should only be called a french if the rest of the moves follow the thematic french plans 3.g3 is already denying this , and if there is any reason to call this "the french defense queen's knight variation" its entirely a formality of move order, same way we call 1.d4 nf6 indian defense when there is no such thing on its own. which doesnt apply if you begin with 1.nc3.
and before you make the ridiculous leap in logic and say, "by your own admission 1.nc3 is not an independent opening then!" notice that this applies to all 20 first white moves. each move you make narrows possibilities but until the game has a particular form early on, do you get an opening and not mere negations.
Being an NM doesnt make me a God, but it sure makes quite an impression when someone argues some silly point on an opening i have played all my life!
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.
Just... stop trying to make stuff up.
Probably the biggest thing we can say against 1.Nc3 is to blocks the c pawn (and for obvious reasons blocking the f pawn isn't equivalent).
But even so, after e.g. 1.Nc3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 white has Veresov and Jobava openings.
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.
2...d4 is pretty clearly the critical try. Playing 2...c6 or 2...e6 would be to stay in french/caro territory.
And in my database 2...d4 scores the best, even in chess.com's free opening explorer it scores the best.
So again, it's like you're making stuff up just for the sake of having an argument.
For heaven's sake, you keep proving my point. I've already said that 1.Nc3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 is the freaking Richter-Veresov - leaving 1.Nc3 without an independent significance. I'm not making any stuff up: my first point that you criticize is entirely correct, is it not? 1.Nc3 doesn't stop either e5 or d5, while 1.Nf3 does stop one of those two moves. You exercise control more control over the centre. In the long run, though, it clearly makes very little difference.
Same goes for my second point: Yes, 2...d4 is ambitious, but not necessarily Black's best move. In ChessBase, if you look there, you'll find that White scores heavily against 2...d4. Once again, my whole point is that we're still in another main opening - this the Closed Scandinavian, having started out with a Dunst/Van Geet. The independent significance of 1.Nc3 as White's first move is minute.
Anyway, I'll leave you to it, because you clearly don't even want to understand the argument I'm making. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with 1.Nc3, just that it doesn't really have any independent significance since it transposes to other main openings. What's so hard to understand about that? You keep proving me right all the time constantly quoting variations which are from other openings.
Dear unorthodox88, 'I'm NM, but not a God': Yes, you keeping proving the point that DeirdreSkye and I are making. The diagram you're posting shows a French Defence where White has played the KIA setup. It just so happens that 1.g3 was White's first move instead of 1.e4 e6 2.d3 etc. It doesn't mean that you haven't reached a variation of the French any the less. And this is the whole argument, 1.Nc3 rarely makes a difference after a handful of moves, we're typically in another opening, Richter-Veresov, the French, the Caro-Kann, the Scandinavian. It doesn't mean that 1.Nc3 is a bad move, it just means that as an opening it's not indepedently very significant, since it constantly transposes to other well-known openings.
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.
Just... stop trying to make stuff up.
Probably the biggest thing we can say against 1.Nc3 is to blocks the c pawn (and for obvious reasons blocking the f pawn isn't equivalent).
But even so, after e.g. 1.Nc3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 white has Veresov and Jobava openings.
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.
2...d4 is pretty clearly the critical try. Playing 2...c6 or 2...e6 would be to stay in french/caro territory.
And in my database 2...d4 scores the best, even in chess.com's free opening explorer it scores the best.
So again, it's like you're making stuff up just for the sake of having an argument.
For heaven's sake, you keep proving my point. I've already said that 1.Nc3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 is the freaking Richter-Veresov - leaving 1.Nc3 without an independent significance. I'm not making any stuff up: my first point that you criticize is entirely correct, is it not? 1.Nc3 doesn't stop either e5 or d5, while 1.Nf3 does stop one of those two moves. You exercise control more control over the centre. In the long run, though, it clearly makes very little difference.
Same goes for my second point: Yes, 2...d4 is ambitious, but not necessarily Black's best move. In ChessBase, if you look there, you'll find that White scores heavily against 2...d4. Once again, my whole point is that we're still in another main opening - this the Closed Scandinavian, having started out with a Dunst/Van Geet. The independent significance of 1.Nc3 as White's first move is minute.
Anyway, I'll leave you to it, because you clearly don't even want to understand the argument I'm making. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with 1.Nc3, just that it doesn't really have any independent significance since it transposes to other main openings. What's so hard to understand about that? You keep proving me right all the time constantly quoting variations which are from other openings.
1.Nc3, just that it doesn't really have any independent significance since it transposes to other main openings.
your point is either clearly wrong or trivially true.
1.if being capable of having transpositions is enough to not be independent then too many things accepted as independent are not, so wrong
2.if only having trans-positional significance is what you mean, see my previous post on all the independent lines that really can only arise in serious games from 1.nc3 only (or only happen with any significant frequency via 1.nc3 order).
3. if your point is that since they are SOME lines where black can insist on trying to force the game to more known territory, read my last post (the biggest and last one from when i post this) why that point is moot and its at best a grammar issue. This also falls to the system problem, namely if my opponent plays a system, by that same line of reasoning my totally legit unique opening is "reduced" to the system my opponent plays, which goes back to "it takes two to make an opening" mantra. your point swallows too much in.
besides, this interpretation can only apply to that quote, under the most laborious of interpretations. it almost comes across as purposely disingenuous.
Dear unorthodox88, 'I'm NM, but not a God': Yes, you keeping proving the point that DeirdreSkye and I are making. The diagram you're posting shows a French Defence where White has played the KIA setup. It just so happens that 1.g3 was White's first move instead of 1.e4 e6 2.d3 etc. It doesn't mean that you haven't reached a variation of the French any the less. And this is the whole argument, 1.Nc3 rarely makes a difference after a handful of moves, we're typically in another opening, Richter-Veresov, the French, the Caro-Kann, the Scandinavian. It doesn't mean that 1.Nc3 is a bad move, it just means that as an opening it's not indepedently very significant, since it constantly transposes to other well-known openings.
what part of the paragraph where i name like 5 different independent lines arising realistically only from 1.nc3 did you did you not get?
Instead of posting over and over, why don't you read my previous posts and read them properly. I've already pointed all those things out. You're so incensed that I durst burst the Dunst bubble that you can't even take in what I'm saying it seems. If you start out by playing 1.Nc3 but nearly always end up in other openings, what is the independent significance of that move, then? Sure, you get the odd bit and bob, when Black allows you to, and the game takes on a completely singular character. However, that can happen in any opening, but most of the time, you're actually playing one mainline opening or another. Nothing wrong with it, just that you've reached it by different move order from the normal one. Surely, you can live with the fact that Dunst/van Geet isn't quite as original as you'd like to think?
Instead of posting over and over, why don't read my previous posts and read them properly. I've already pointed all those things out. You're so incensed that I durst burst the bubble that you can't even take in what I'm saying it seems. If you start out by playing 1.Nc3 but nearly always end up in other openings, what is the independent significance of that move? Sure, you get the odd bit and bob, when Black allows you to, when the game takes on a completely singular character, but most of the time, you're actually playing one mainline opening or another. Nothing wrong with it, just that you've reached it by different move order from normal. Surely, you can live with the fact that Dunst/van Geet isn't quite as original as you'd like to think.
except, I, the MASTER who plays in every tournament 1.nc3 at least once, virtually NEVER transpose to anything. must be some miracle im pulling off huh?
if i played a 1.d6 2.nf6 3.g6 4.bg7 5.0-0 agaisnt virtually anything but blunders that white plays, do i say i reduced all independent play from white since he cannot derail my play? Absolutely not. Which is why your point is just plain dumb. your idea of absolutely singular is just myopic.
an opening is determined by two players. Idk how many other ways i can explain this to you.
'MASTER', I only have your interpretation for that, don't I? You've just said that the KIA French you posted isn't a KIA French, because it started out with 1.g3. Looking at the databases, most games beginning with 1.Nc3 transform into the Richter-Veresov, the Closed Scandinavian, the French or the Caro-Kann. And that conforms to my own experience whenever I've faced or seen others play 1.Nc3. Live with it, 1.Nc3 most often leads to another opening by transposition. Nothing wrong with that.
if i played a 1.d6 2.nf6 3.g6 4.bg7 5.0-0 agaisnt virtually anything but blunders that white plays, do i say i reduced all independent play from white since he cannot derail my play? Absolutely not. Which is why your point is just plain dumb. your idea of absolutely singular is just myopic.
an opening is determined by two players. Idk how many other ways i can explain this to you.
Of course it's decided by both players! And that's the whole point: very rarely do you actually get something which isn't another (mostly mainline) opening once you open with 1.Nc3. Leave it, you play Van Geet/Dunst 100% of the time. It's better for your blood pressure, if I say that you do (even if your games actually transpose into the French, Scandinavian, Caro-Kann and what have you).
'MASTER', I only have your interpretation for that, don't I? You've just said that the KIA French you posted isn't a KIA French, because it started out with 1.g3. Looking at the databases, most games beginning with 1.Nc3 transform into the Richter-Veresov, the Closed Scandinavian, the French or the Caro-Kann. And that conforms to my own experience whenever I've faced or seen others play 1.Nc3. Live with it, 1.Nc3 most often leads to another opening by transposition. Nothing wrong with that.
you literally only need to google my name for 5 seconds to confirm my title, if you are so skeptical , of ocurse that seems too high a research standard around (ignoring the fact i was implored to get those red letters via verifying that to chess.com by other members here).
1. its not anything! you havent answered the question WHY is it a french at move 7? the whole point is NOT that "it isnt a french" but that in certain opening lines, ANY classification is at best a grammar issue. your best argument to call that a french is moot in the line i mentioned, because unlike this line, it arises from too many things.
2. it doesnt matter what it can transpose to. The argument here is not "how transpositional is 1.nc3" . the answer is obviously, YES, it CAN be used as a transpositional weapon effectively, BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT YOU MADE, the point you made is that it has no independent significance which is incorrect. Even the weaker claim that it has relatively little independent significance is incorrect, which is why i suggested you look at "knight on the left" because im not going to spell out everything a 400+ respected book on the opening says.
I'm not making any stuff up: my first point that you criticize is entirely correct, is it not? 1.Nc3 doesn't stop either e5 or d5, while 1.Nf3 does stop one of those two moves.
It's entirely correct, and IMO entirely meaningless. It's like beginner books that note 1.e4 opens the f1 bishop and the queen while 1.d4 opens just the c1 bishop. So what? It's a completely meaningless observation.
Same goes for my second point: Yes, 2...d4 is ambitious, but not necessarily Black's best move. In ChessBase, if you look there, you'll find that White scores heavily against 2...d4.
I didn't realize scoring under 50% was "scoring heavily"
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with 1.Nc3, just that it doesn't really have any independent significance
You'll notice I didn't comment on that topic. I don't know enough about 1.Nc3 and darkortho already has 100 posts on it.
You'll notice I didn't comment on that topic. I don't know enough about 1.Nc3 and darkortho already has 100 posts on it.
oh, trust me, i feel a little guilty of that! i will stop now (no, really!). at this point, i dont think i can say much else that would make a difference.
It's nice to have titled players comment.
But I can see why not many do.
(And I don't mean that as a swipe at Bon, I've felt that way long before reading this topic)
stiggling: Yeah, about as meaningless as claiming that 1.Nc3 doesn't transpose most of the time. As for the scoring heavily: on ChessBase , White's 3.Nce2 scores 53% in my database (admittedly my db isn't bang up to date). I strongly suspect that the 43% that you have there, is skewed by moves like 3.Nb1 and 3.Nd5.
darkunorthodox88: I made fun of you because you quite obviously think you're much stronger than me, and treat me accordingly, which really does nothing to prove your point, nor disprove mine (it does, however, say something about you). Transpositions are transpositions, it doesn't matter how they come about. 1.d4 e6 2.d4 d5 or 2...f5 isn't less of a French Defence or Dutch Defence, just because it didn't start 1.e4 e6 and 1.d4 f5, respectively. I'm just amazed that you so vehemently deny this very simply fact of chess life. Sure, you play original moves, but you still play them in a Closed Scandinavian if the game starts 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 d4. After 7 moves in that diagram above, you sit with a French Defence KIA in front of you, it doesn't matter that it originated from 1.g3.
Never mind, we'll never agree on this very simple point, so let's just agree to disagree. Hopefully some day we'll meet in a tournament somewhere in the world, and get to slog it out over the board! I think that would be great fun. All the best for now.
I don't know much about these lines, and the stats may be skewed one way or another (I know some lines are drawish or bad but because GMs use them against scrubs in open tournaments the stats are misleading)
But FWIW the stats after 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.Nce2 e5 aren't looking good for white either.
That's interesting, but your sample is very small. In my base (which, as I say, isn't bang up to date) I have many thousands of games in these lines.
That's interesting, but your sample is very small. In my base (which, as I say, isn't bang up to date) I have many thousands of games in these lines.
Why not give an example of an 'indepenent' opening? So far...
French is not independent because 3Nc3 transposes to Van Geet. Van Geet is not independent because can transpose to French.
1 Nf3 is not independent because 1....e5(Herrstrom Gambit) 2 e4 and now transposes to 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3. Of course 1e4 e5 2 nf3 is not independent because of 1 Nf3 e5 2 e4.
And then there is 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Nf6 which is not independent because white can play 4 d4 and then...4 Qa5 is the same position as the Scandi.
Not even the grog is independent because with the right transposition....
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.
Just... stop trying to make stuff up.
Probably the biggest thing we can say against 1.Nc3 is to blocks the c pawn (and for obvious reasons blocking the f pawn isn't equivalent).
But even so, after e.g. 1.Nc3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 white has Veresov and Jobava openings.
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.
2...d4 is pretty clearly the critical try. Playing 2...c6 or 2...e6 would be to stay in french/caro territory.
And in my database 2...d4 scores the best, even in chess.com's free opening explorer it scores the best.
So again, it's like you're making stuff up just for the sake of having an argument.