What are the independent characteristics of the Dunst/van Geet?
How is the Herrström Gambit independent, but the ECO A00 Dunst/Van Geet opening is not independent. The independent characteristics of the Dunst opening is that it allows black to steer the game into any number of positions. Heck, black could play 1 Nc3 b5. If white is willing to play 1 Nc3 d5 2 e4 d4, then thats a unique opening position.
1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.Ne2 e5 4.Ng3 Be6 is given in "Smerdon's Scandinavian" and advocated as good for Black. However his analysis is not entirely convincing in the 5.c3! line (his 5...a6 is actually a fine move, but from there on something is missing).
But anyway, this is of academic interest: 2...dxe4 3.Nxe4 and now 3...Nf6, 3...Bf5 and 3...Nd7 are all fine for Black- I do not see why he should bother playing ...c6 and entering a normal Caro.
1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.Ne2 e5 4.Ng3 Be6 is given in "Smerdon's Scandinavian" and advocated as good for Black. However his analysis is not entirely convincing in the 5.c3! line (his 5...a6 is actually a fine move, but from there on something is missing).
But anyway, this is of academic interest: 2...dxe4 3.Nxe4 and now 3...Nf6, 3...Bf5 and 3...Nd7 are all fine for Black- I do not see why he should bother playing ...c6 and entering a normal Caro.
I haven't read Smerdon's Scandinavian, but my gut feeling is 'overstretch'.
As for leaving out ...c6, I dare say you're right.
What are the independent characteristics of the Dunst/van Geet?
How is the Herrström Gambit independent, but the ECO A00 Dunst/Van Geet opening is not independent. The independent characteristics of the Dunst opening is that it allows black to steer the game into any number of positions. Heck, black could play 1 Nc3 b5. If white is willing to play 1 Nc3 d5 2 e4 d4, then thats a unique opening position.
1.Nc3 b5, now that would indeed be an original gambit.
The Herrström Gambit is an independent opening yes, but the variation you just gave - 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 - is the Closed variation of the Scandinavian (just that you've started the game with 1.Nc3). Independent in chess means specific character, which is not necessarily the same as flexible or chameleon-like.
The fact that I open with 1.Nf3 doesn't necessarily mean that I will play the Reti, and if my opponent replies 1...c5, surely we can agree that 2.e4 is the Sicilian, and not the Reti? (Especially not since the latter occurs only after 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4, if we go by the original move order.)
Thoughts on 1.Nc3:
Don't play it, unless you have studied theory and game plans. It doesn't really matter what your playing as long as you know a reasonable plan, which is why things like 1.a3 is played.
This is one of my favorite pet lines. I was inspired by a game of Paul Keres, who played the same setup against the caro kann.
And here are some of my games:
This is one of my favorite pet lines. I was inspired by a game of Paul Keres, who played the same setup against the caro kann.
And here are some of my games:
its one of my favorite things about these lines. White often gets a massive attack on the kingside for free. White's harmonious piece play triumphs black's space, which often isnt even advantageous in the endgame anyways. I have gotten so many knockouts this way.
Exactly. Playing c5 looks nice because it controls the center, takes space etc, but it really is just a waste of time. I've learned that these positions are equal if black doesn't waste any time. But if he wastes one tempo (c5) I get a small advantage, and if he wastes 2 (c5+ h6 or something) then I'll get a pretty sizeable attack.
A big value of this opening is the fact that it tricks people into playing outside their repertoire. Frequently a Sicilian player will be tricked into playing a pirc or vienna and gets destroyed.
A big value of this opening is the fact that it tricks people into playing outside their repertoire. Frequently a Sicilian player will be tricked into playing a pirc or vienna and gets destroyed.
Mostly you will trick a Sicilian player into 1...c5, which is not such a great achievement... 
A big value of this opening is the fact that it tricks people into playing outside their repertoire. Frequently a Sicilian player will be tricked into playing a pirc or vienna and gets destroyed.
Mostly you will trick a Sicilian player into 1...c5, which is not such a great achievement...
lol
Yeah, I was thinking if I were surprised, I could just play 1...c5 because I don't mind closed Sicilians.
Sicilains are against e4. You cannot make white play e4 after you play c5.
Sicilains are against e4. You cannot make white play e4 after you play c5.
Of course, but if white plays without e4 then I'll get something like this
1.Nc3 c5 2.Nf3 d5 3.d4 Nc6 4.Bf4 Nf6
which I'll never be unhappy with.
Sicilains are against e4. You cannot make white play e4 after you play c5.
True, but what is white's follow- up after 1.Nc3 c5?
2.e4 is the most natural, 2.d4 does not feel quite right and other moves are pretty inconclusive.
Back in the seventies the late IM Zvonko Mestrovic won a few games with the weird 2.Ne4 (which he occasionally repeated until recently), but it does not seem that this move has any real value.
Sicilains are against e4. You cannot make white play e4 after you play c5.
True, but what is white's follow- up after 1.Nc3 c5?
2.e4 is the most natural, 2.d4 does not feel quite right and other moves are pretty inconclusive.
Back in the seventies the late IM Zvonko Mestrovic won a few games with the weird 2.Ne4 (which he occasionally repeated until recently), but it does not seem that this move has any real value.
usually, white plays 2.nf3 3.d4 4.nxd4 stuff with an early g3 or bg5, and white delays committing e4 for as long as possible. Since black can play this in so many ways, whether white should play e4 sooner rather than latter depends heavily on the sideline.
1.nc3 c5 2.nf3 nc6 3.d4 d5 is interesting though, where white will play bf4 e3 stuff.
for the hardcore unorthodox fans 1.nc3 c5 2.d4!? is not as crazy as it seems. Esp given Jobava's "0-0-0 forever approach that is more respectable than it looks at least practically.
'1.Nc3 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 d5 is interesting though, where white will play Bf4 e3 stuff.' Chigorin's Defence with colours reversed. Interesting. Probably better than the real McCoy.
3.Nc3 transposes the French to the Van Geet? So you're basically saying that Van Geet is the French with a different move order? I think you'll find that I'm not claiming that. You'll have to explain what van Geet/Dunst is after 1.Nc3 - the independent lines which constitute the van Geet/Dunst, because everything else is another opening, and not van Geet/Dunst. The French Defence, on the other hand, is an independent opening. Am I right thinking that you've just claimed that 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 in the Petroff, as played in the recently concluded World Championship match, is in fact the Dunst/van Geet by another move order (1.Nc3 e5 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxe4 4.Nxe5 d6 5.Nf3 Nxc3)? I certainly am not.
The Herrström Gambit is of course the Herrström Gambit, and nothing else, while the Reti is a different kettle of fish altogether. That doesn't mean, however, that 1.Nf3 is the Reti (that comes a little later). 1.Nf3 can often transpose into the Catalan, the English, the King's Indian, QGD etc. and a Reti can also begin with 1.g3 or 1.d3 (it doesn't stay vant Krayz for ever ...)
Should anyone decline the Herrström Gambit by playing 2.e4, we are indeed in the normal King's Pawn opening and no longer in the HG, but that doesn't mean that for instance the Ruy Lopez, the Petroff, the Giuco Piano, and the Scotch Game are one and the same. How could they be, they're characterized by different second and third moves by either White or Black. Do you think I'm claiming that they transpose into each other?
The transpositional possibilities are clearly great in the early stages of any game (as anyone who's played the Sicilian as Black will tell you), but that doesn't mean that individual openings don't have specific characteristics. However, what are the independent characteristics of the Dunst/van Geet?