Weird Variation in 1...Nc6 Defense

Optimissed

^^^ The whole point of the defence! tongue.png

 

bobby_fischer7962

2. ...Nb8 is actually played at another line, interestingly enough

 

d0su
bobby_fischer7962 wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:

1. thats hardly a criticism considering so many good black defenses can be dealt with natural play, and they are like 3 different ways to play within 2.d6

2.why nc6  is bad  in this pseudo scandinavian here is not nearly as clear as you make it sound (even if i begrudgingly concur)

3. no it does not. the purpose of 2.nf6 is to play ng4 which is not possible in the ordinary alekhine.

4. 2..f5 is just bad, only thing we just might agree on

5. calling it dubious doesnt make it so, and these lines are not unlike respectable french sidelines with early nc6 like the guimard variation of the tarrasch (in fact, it often tranposes if white allows it). 

 

1. I'm not questioning how sound the line is, but white succeeded in avoiding the theory of the typical Nc6 lines

<Plays ...Nc6 to avoid mainline theory>
<White player just plays natural moves>
<Both players get a playable middlegame>
<White thinks he has won the opening because he avoided theory>
wink.png

bobby_fischer7962
d0su wrote:
bobby_fischer7962 wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:

1. thats hardly a criticism considering so many good black defenses can be dealt with natural play, and they are like 3 different ways to play within 2.d6

2.why nc6  is bad  in this pseudo scandinavian here is not nearly as clear as you make it sound (even if i begrudgingly concur)

3. no it does not. the purpose of 2.nf6 is to play ng4 which is not possible in the ordinary alekhine.

4. 2..f5 is just bad, only thing we just might agree on

5. calling it dubious doesnt make it so, and these lines are not unlike respectable french sidelines with early nc6 like the guimard variation of the tarrasch (in fact, it often tranposes if white allows it). 

 

1. I'm not questioning how sound the line is, but white succeeded in avoiding the theory of the typical Nc6 lines

<Plays ...Nc6 to avoid mainline theory>
<White player just plays natural moves>
<Both players get a playable middlegame>
<White thinks he has won the opening because he avoided theory>

 

I mean if you intentionally want to follow 1...Nc6 with 2...d6, then be my guest. It doesn't exactly make 1...Nc6 better because no one else knows how to play against it as the OP implies

darkunorthodox88
bobby_fischer7962 wrote:
d0su wrote:
bobby_fischer7962 wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:

1. thats hardly a criticism considering so many good black defenses can be dealt with natural play, and they are like 3 different ways to play within 2.d6

2.why nc6  is bad  in this pseudo scandinavian here is not nearly as clear as you make it sound (even if i begrudgingly concur)

3. no it does not. the purpose of 2.nf6 is to play ng4 which is not possible in the ordinary alekhine.

4. 2..f5 is just bad, only thing we just might agree on

5. calling it dubious doesnt make it so, and these lines are not unlike respectable french sidelines with early nc6 like the guimard variation of the tarrasch (in fact, it often tranposes if white allows it). 

 

1. I'm not questioning how sound the line is, but white succeeded in avoiding the theory of the typical Nc6 lines

<Plays ...Nc6 to avoid mainline theory>
<White player just plays natural moves>
<Both players get a playable middlegame>
<White thinks he has won the opening because he avoided theory>

 

I mean if you intentionally want to follow 1...Nc6 with 2...d6, then be my guest. It doesn't exactly make 1...Nc6 better because no one else knows how to play against it as the OP implies

oh but it in fact does. for example  1.e4 nc6 2.nf3 d6 3.d4 nf6 4.nc3 g6 , is already an improvement from a main line pirc, bypassing the dreaded austrian attack (the commitment of the nc6 is a small price to pay for not dealing with f4). while this is how i play vs 2.nf3 i woudnt discount some of the other independent ways to play agaisnt it merely because their mainline cousin's eval is slightly higher. if this were the case, no one would play sidelines within these opening systems to begin with.

I dont know where you get this idea that black needs to baffle white into completely unfamiliar territory. the whole purpose of playing 2.nf3 over the more principled 2.d4 is precisely (which presumably, doesnt allow a transposition to a more eval friendly spanish) is to force black to show his hand and avoid highly independent stuff. doesnt mean the lines played are identical to their seemingly mainstream cousins. 

 

bobby_fischer7962
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
bobby_fischer7962 wrote:
d0su wrote:
bobby_fischer7962 wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:

1. thats hardly a criticism considering so many good black defenses can be dealt with natural play, and they are like 3 different ways to play within 2.d6

2.why nc6  is bad  in this pseudo scandinavian here is not nearly as clear as you make it sound (even if i begrudgingly concur)

3. no it does not. the purpose of 2.nf6 is to play ng4 which is not possible in the ordinary alekhine.

4. 2..f5 is just bad, only thing we just might agree on

5. calling it dubious doesnt make it so, and these lines are not unlike respectable french sidelines with early nc6 like the guimard variation of the tarrasch (in fact, it often tranposes if white allows it). 

 

1. I'm not questioning how sound the line is, but white succeeded in avoiding the theory of the typical Nc6 lines

<Plays ...Nc6 to avoid mainline theory>
<White player just plays natural moves>
<Both players get a playable middlegame>
<White thinks he has won the opening because he avoided theory>

 

I mean if you intentionally want to follow 1...Nc6 with 2...d6, then be my guest. It doesn't exactly make 1...Nc6 better because no one else knows how to play against it as the OP implies

oh but it in fact does. for example  1.e4 nc6 2.nf3 d6 3.d4 nf6 4.nc3 g6 , is already an improvement from a main line pirc, bypassing the dreaded austrian attack (the commitment of the nc6 is a small price to pay for not dealing with f4). while this is how i play vs 2.nf3 i woudnt discount some of the other independent ways to play agaisnt it merely because their mainline cousin's eval is slightly higher. if this were the case, no one would play sidelines within these opening systems to begin with.

I dont know where you get this idea that black needs to baffle white into completely unfamiliar territory. the whole purpose of playing 2.nf3 over the more principled 2.d4 is precisely (which presumably, doesnt allow a transposition to a more eval friendly spanish) is to force black to show his hand and avoid highly independent stuff. doesnt mean the lines played are identical to their seemingly mainstream cousins. 

 

 

It actually doesn't though. I wasn't comparing 1...Nc6 to the Pirc (The 2...d6 doesn't play like the Pirc, I agree), but to any other defense. 1...Nc6 is not popular for a good reason.

As for the second paragraph, I never said that black needs to baffle white, but he can't baffle with 1...Nc6 because of 2.Nf3. The OP was getting good results with 1...Nc6 because he was playing against worse players, not that his opponents were unfamiliar with 1...Nc6