What do you think of 1.nf3?

Specifically for speed chess.

I was looking in to Nf3 games and found a Carlsen-Anand blitz game played earlier this year. I often play Nf3 just because it "feels nice", half of my games usually transpose into an e4 game.

I used to play 1.Nf3 (now switched to 1.c4 where I play fairly similar lines).
I actually found it very effective for speed chess, many people are ill prepared for it and have trouble quickly playing moves due to it's inherent flexibility. This flexibility means they have greater trouble predicting your moves, and in particular I find pawn moves are often more difficult to quickly evaluate, and the reti leaves a wide array of pawn break available.

Additionally white often has fairly simple, easy to follow plans in a lot of variations, contrasted with the previously mentioned difficulty often experienced by black.

Finally, due to transpositional possibilites into c4, d4 and e4 people often have repertoire holes existing against 1.Nf3, and I often found people lost time pausing to think about how to not accidently leave their preparation.

That said, as noted by chessmickey, Nf3 deprives white of some of the more aggressive and tricky tries such as the exchange QGD or samisch. It is quite difficult to create complications as white after 1.Nf3, and many of white's main tries are somewhat insipid.

I used to play 1. Nf3 (some people call it the Zukertort Opening, some call it the Reti) since I liked the exotic aspect of it (a knight emerging before pawns) and the name "hypermodern." Then I got more practical when I realized that it wasn't forcing enough: I have a good memory and an affinity for opening book moves and well-known positions, so I wasn't using some of my best skills in chess, and I was also throwing away my opportunity as White to force the game down paths I knew well since 1. Nf3 can transpose into just about anything whereas 1. e4 limits Black's responses more.

best opening move if you are a flexible enough player to be able to exploit its full transpositional potential (to d4, c4, e4 or independent lines). specially great when you can prepare against your opponent, you can often lure your opponent into playing openings he didn't actually want to play

= 1.d4

1.Nf3 is easily the most flexible starting move. The e4/d4/c4 pushes are still available depending on what the second player does. The only possibility it "blocks" is f4, the bird, but as Fischer shows some of the better positions in the bird are arrived at via transposition where white wins the central darks squares then plays Ne5/f4. See Fischer-Mecking 1970.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044318

Therefore, the only thing off limits might be a Saemich KID. The small loss is made up for by being able to do anti-systems against openings such as the Grunfeld and Nimzo Indian.

Objectively, it's fine, perhaps theoretically a little weaker than 1.d4 or 1.e4, but the only first move besides those two which gives White some opening advantage.

Practically, I don't know why you would play it unless you are much stronger than your opponent, and you would like to see their play until you commit to any given pawn move. 1.Nf3 essentially asks the opponent what kind of game they would like to play. Why give them the luxury? Take advantage of the White pieces and play your own way.

I would argue the opposite. Early pawn moves are inherently more commital (not saying worse). Playing 1.Nf3 should give you more flexibility and choice over the resulting positions. Consistent with this, black has many less forcing lines against 1.Nf3 than against 1.e4 or 1.d4. 

However, as I noted earlier, white's range of the 'style' of position they may choose (sharp, positional, aggressive, technical, etc) I think, is greatly diminished in 1.Nf3 as it is difficult to play sharp or aggressive lines. Perhaps this is what you were getting at?

Just a clarifying point, since the difference between the two positions above is somewhat subtle: I think white still has the lion share of control over the type of position that results, myabe more so than after 1.e4 or 1.d4 but is often unable to pursue certain types of positions such as aggressive lines.

I like it from either side generally.  As white I like a reversed Queen's Indian or if black plays an early 1...d5 then 2.c4! but those lines aren't as critical as 1...Nf6 with 2...g6 lines since those tend to be most common.  Then white can transpose into a classical KID to avoid a mutual hypermodern position where imbalances are abysmally few and perhaps with play against a Boleslavsky Wall. 

It is a legal move.

3clever5me

weak.

Superqueen would you give Aronian a hug?

Oh she was closed..,never mind

i hate sicilian defense (with white) and nf3 c5 gives me ebola

I normally play it against ppl who don't know any theory so things wouldn't be unfair or boring. All the same I know nothing about it from the white side so maybe shouldn't be posting here..

She was probably closed for being a radical feminist.

1 Nf3 is my first move for over 25 years, with transpositions to Queens Gambit, Grünfeld or King's Indian with g3 and Symmetrical English. Pro: No nasty gambits like Budapest, Benkö, Albin. Against Nimzo Indian or Dutch Stonewall black fights for square e4, white has a pawn on d2 to join that battle. Con: In Queen's Gambit and Symmetrical English lines white has played an early Nf3, which cuts some interesting lines for white. However Nf3 is never a bad move in these lines. The Ragozin Defense is one of the openings black can play because of the early Nf3.

A move for those who want to avoid the theory of the openings with 1.e4 and 1.d4, and still not lose from the beginning.