Whites most testing lines against the Open/Closed Tarrasch French

This early c5 line is one of the best lines in the system for white.

Especially followed up by e5 from black, the position you posted. Thats the most common black response but... It's quite sharp, chaotic and obscure. Any time an opening plays like that it favors the prepared player, which is simply always going to be white in this case. The most played move in your position, after e4, is d5... and it is losing already. c4 is possible too yes, and it's also quite good. But e4 is I think is even more volatile.

All the early c5 lines play like that - very sharp, very odd. And objectively they're all fine for white, the worst you'll get is a position that's about +0.00, but still volatile in a way that swings in whites favor.

On that note... lets get the objective claim out of the way. Leela scores the Van Geet -0.02, and the Levitsky -0.10. It scores this Nd2 line +0.00. There is no line I've seen in this system that either doesn't transpose into something known - Colle, Breyer Slav, French Tarrasch - or isn't totally sharp and obscure in a way that is great for white.

Anyway, I like the Van Geet but the one criticism I have of it is... black can take the game into somewhat-known territory in many lines.... c5 will get you a sort-of sicilian, d5 and most people have encountered the chigorin system at some point. As for the Jobava - I think 10 years ago it was a pioneering opening, it was very original and lethal. Today I don't really believe it is anymore. Everyone knows its name now, most people have some idea of what it is / how to play it. In these queens pawn sidelines, or any line where you give up the advantage, a very major part of your compensation is the surprise factor. If that surprise dies off... your opening is losing its most important aspect. 
For this reason I didn't play the Jobava, I played the Veresov. In the Veresov, though, there are a number of lines where it can become a "slog". Meaning... it's just an equal game where the two are slogging it out, white doesn't have something sharp, or unusual, that really justifies his giving up the advantage. Sometimes the Veresov pays off, sometimes it doesn't. 

There is no line in this Nd2 system that feels remotely like a "slog". There is no easy formulaic response that black is going to know, either. Except if they happen to be one of 12% of french players and find their way into the tarrasch french... that is the only really "known" line. 
The Colle transpositions aren't actually that common, but the people who know their colle lines play the anti-colle or the early c5, both of which this system avoids.

Let me start by saying I generally place little faith in abstract theorizing about the opening, especially the kind done in complete confidence but divorced from any tangible experience. In your case - you just finished extoling the virtues of the Levitskys, so your attitude is even more confusing and obscure to me, but I digress.

People often make the same sorts of claims about the Van Geet, they say you're blocking in he C pawn, it's anti positional. In practice it's outscoring 1. e4 and 1. d4. 
While abstractly theorizing I think you can fool yourself into believing you've arrived at the best possible conclusion, when in reality you're lost at sea down in the depths clinging tightly to some seaweed.

Instead of doing that, it's much better to just look at the resulting positions and base conclusions off that.

I don't think Ostrich in the sand is the right name, it's not doing it justice. Rather I call it the Wormsnake. Because you think it's harmless, you think it's a worm, but then it uncoils with c4 or e4 (either is possible, sometimes both) - the position gets chaotic very quickly, it is infact a vicious snake. This is one of the trappiest lines I have seen in 1. d4...

For some comparison, if you've ever played the Breyer slav... it's known for being a very trappy slav sideline. Almost all of the sidelines in the Wormsnake here play very much like the Breyer. The lines which aren't sharp are the known ones - colle, French tarrasch.

Now theoretically... if we wanted to speak in these somewhat-useless abstract terms, we can say Nd2 allows white to push either e4 or c4, sometimes both, while being immune to pins via Bb4, or exchanges that damage the pawn structure. Whites DSB also defends b3, but isn't locked in. Alternatively, White can Fiancetto on the kingside while pushing c4 and not worrying about dxc4. Likewise white can play Qb3, and dxc4 doesn't tempo the queen. The queen here can also often rotate to the kingside, it happens. Or white can play b3 and, and since his knight doesn't block the bishop he will exert good control over e5 / his knight is already rotating over to reinforce Ne5. 
So yes, there are ideas in the position. And it's actually an extremely flexible system.

The move is fine against 1... d5.

In the Colle positions Nd2 is facilitating b3 > Bb2. 
I'm only transposing into the Colle in 2 lines - when black plays an early e6, or g6. 
Against e6 - this is actually the most winning line for white in the Colle. White is up by 10 points here, which usually isn't the case. I think the reason for this is... a) black can't develop his bishop outside the pawn chain, b) he also didn't push c5 early which is one of the more problematic moves for the Colle.

Against g6... Actually, I like the colle against g6. 
I've played many of these offbeat zuckertort-type queens pawn systems - London, Jobava, Veresov, Torre... g6 is usually the most annoying line to face in these systems. The game is usually very slow and grindy, and you'd have been better off in a pirc or KID/Grunfeld. Often times your bishop ends up not doing very much, getting chased away by a knight or lasering thin air.

Here in the Colle, with b3 > Bb2, you're directly opposing blacks kingside bishop. It leads to whole-board positions which I prefer over the attempts at pushing queenside pawns while blacks kingside bishop is lasering you the entire time.

So the 2 Colle lines I get from Nd2 are probably the 2 I would prefer, if I had my choice of Colle lines. I'm not such a fan of the Colle in general, but these 2 lines are the exception. 
Overall though, the Colle is not a common transposition here. The Breyer slav is more common. Because d5/e6 is a french tarrasch transposition after 3. e4

But what you usually get are the original lines. Wich usually involve either an early Qb3, or c5 > dxc5 gambit lines. 

So no, it's a fine system. A fine system that has pretty much never been given any attention. And it happens to be very sharp, which is.... exactly what you want in a rare line. 

Are you trying to imply that if one knows the Levitsky, they can't know any other openings?

Listen up kid! I have likely been playing chess one hell of a lot longer than you have been alive. I first learn in 1983, and started actually studying books in 1995, and have played roughly 3600 standard time control games over the board. I have played NUMEROUS openings, numerous times each. If you just talk White, I was playing the Kings Indian Attack in 1997. I played main lines of d4 and e4 for most of the first 7 years otherwise. 1.Nc3 in 2004 and 2005, entering the Van Geet against 1...d5 and 2...d4, and even played the Tubingen Gambit (1.Nc3 Nf6 2.g4) which if answered by Black correctly, would transpose to the Bronstein Gambit after 5 moves. I played Bird's Opening most of 2006, favoring the Antoshin when I could (f4/Nf3/d3/c3/Qc2, trying to get e4 in a single move), e4 for most of 2007, and I played the Sokolsky 2008-2009, 2014, and again 2022-2024. I played the English most of 2010 to 2012. I played e4, d4, etc.

For basically all of 2019, I played 1.d4, answering 1...Nf6/2...g6 and 1...Nf6/2...e6 with the Torre Attack, 1....d5 with the Colle (both Koltanowski and Zukertort, having read both the Lakdawala and Palliser books in the move by move series on the Colle and Torre, and also read the updated version of Summerscale's Killer chess opening repertoire. Against an early c5, I avoided c4 while against Anti-Colle lines, I answered with c4.

During the pandemic, I played correspondence chess on ICCF, not the dumb rapid online events here. Post pandemic until mid-2022, I was playing 1.e4 with the Slow Italian, Closed Sicilian, Fantasy Caro-Kann, and both the Advance and Nc3-French. The Tromp/Levitsky has been basically the last 6 months.

So your "digression" is utter horsebleep. Know who you are talking to before basically saying they are full of bleep.

So until you have something intelligent to say, zip it! Maybe one day you will finally wake up and realize that someone that is half a century old probably knows more than you!

As far as the Ostrich in the Sand reference, don't ask me. Ask Lakdawala where he got it from. He wrote the book. He's out in California. Go buy a round trip ticket to San Diego so you can ask him.

And your logic for Nd2 is naive. Bd3 against the Fianchetto is garbage. You are biting on Granite. Even London players (one of very few openings I have not played as White but faced MANY times with Black) don't put the Bishop on d3 against fianchetto setups. It goes to e2 and for good reason.

I can also see you are 1400 in bullet and 1500 in correspondence, talking a lot of trash and claiming your lines are "fine". Come move to Charlotte, North Carolina and let me face you a few times over the board either on Tuesday nights or a Saturday event. I'd mop you off the freaking ground when I have Black against you playing that trash!

No, I think it's inconsistent to exalt playing Bg5 attacking air, but in your next post scoff at an idea that's equally offbeat but objectively 0.1 better for white, while also demonstrating very little comprehension of it... essentially because you haven't seen it written about glowingly in a book before. It's just a dogmatic and arrogant attitude which you are subjecting me to, and so you can expect me to insult you in response, yes. Instead of getting offended you should learn better, and thank me for taking the time to explain to you the ideas, especially after you mindlessly / arrogantly asserted there were none (there were none in your head, sure).

Btw - when you mention my daily rating, you should also mention the fact I'm 19-1 and the only loss was an abandonment on move 1. i.e. I have never actually lost a game. And maybe also mention that, while you've been playing chess longer than I've been alive (by your own admission), you are only a measly 200 points higher rated than me... and I have not even begun studying the endgame or the midgame yet, I literally have only ever studied the opening. So what does that really say about you?
I haven't seen you demonstrate a better understanding of the opening than I have, in any case.. which is what we're actually here discussing. If you did I'd be eager to learn from it, but unfortunately you frequently disappoint me in this department.

Keep trying though

Your numerical basis for assessing openings is why you are hundreds of rating points below me. You base assessments on numbers given by artificial intelligence that is often wrong anyway. It will tell you the Classical Kings Indian is -1. Then you have it play the best moves for both sides for another dozen moves and it's suddenly +0.5. In addition, one position well after the opening may be +2.7 while another move may be +1.8, but the latter may actually be the better move in human play because the +2.7 is based on a 16-move tactical sequence that even a human GM wouldn't find. The +1.8 position may be a joke for White to win. You can go up 2 pawns now with an easy victory, or sacrifice two pieces just to win back 3 pieces 15 moves down the road, going up a piece. I will take the two pawns and the simple win.

Computers are good at assessing forced tactical sequences to win a pawn or piece. They are horrid at assessing positions after 10 moves properly, assuming those 10 moves are standard, normal lines of normal openings.

When I face kids over the board, I know exactly how to beat them. They try to memorize and never understand openings, and they are always looking for some forcing tactical sequence. The answer is to play something dull. Get to an endgame. You kids are clueless in endgames. I am extremely strong with minor piece endings and explains why in roughly 100 games I have played as Black in the Exchange French since 2014 when I took up the Symmetrical variation, I literally have 4 losses, all in G/60 or shorter time control, to go along with about 25 to 30 draws and mid-to-upper 60s in wins. The vast majority of those were minor piece endings. NvsN, NvsB, OCB's, NN vs NB, etc.

Chess is not about whether artifical intelligence favors a move by 0.1 over another move. It is about understand the positions you are playing. I am no good at the mobile pawn center, and hence why I avoid the Grunfeld and Alekhine from both sides. Knowing you own pitfalls, and avoiding them, is part of understand how to play for real in tournaments. It's not about what move does artificial intelligence favor most. It is about what moves lead to positions you understand, but the way you describe the pros of 2.Nd2, you don't understand the positions, you probably just figured fritz gives it an extra tenth of a point, so it must be better.

You're the one talking about numbers. You had a chance to speak to the ideas, you chose to go on about your rating and completely ignore that aspect. I gave you a long post on ideas, and all you've come back with is some talk about numbers. I think there was one single, brief paragraph about the numbers in my response to you, and I only even mentioned it because you were making sweeping statements as if they were fact i.e. objective, when they're nothing but your very arrogant / ignorant and reactionary opinion. If you want to talk "facts" about the opening - the closest reference we have is, infact, the assessment of these machines. But I'm not the one making sweeping statements and passing them off as fact, or basing my argument on my imaginary authoritaeee, that would be you.

If I cared only about the engine I wouldn't be playing a line that's dead equal on move 2 for white.

If you want to talk about understanding 2. Nd2 - white has all the advantage in understanding of these positions. Black will never have seen them. And they're often radically different than other lines. Obviously it's white with the edge in understanding. 
After all, that is sort-of the whole point here, isn't it?

Again a very underwhelming response. Try again

My daily rating here is meaningless.

I tried to enter some rapid event that was 1 day per move, got hung up at work, and lost on time for all 12 games and dropped about 300 to 400 points.

All ratings on here are garbage.

Here's what you need to go based on:

ICCF Correspondence - 2200s

USCF Over the Board - 1900s (been as high as 2185 back in 2014)

FIDE - 1800s - Though only about 20 to 30 percent of my games were FIDE rated. Many were just USCF rated, hence why that one is higher. One could argue I was over 2200 FIDE, but that was provisional in 2002 when I played through my bleep at the US Open that year, back when that event was FIDE rated.

So nice try - try again!

I don't need to "go on" anything since I could not care less what your rating is, you brought it up try to try to "win" the debate, as you types so often do when you sense you're losing it... but you can technically never win an argument that way, it'd probably be wiser not to even try. It never replaces a substantive point.

Meanwhile you have still said... nothing insightful at all about the original topic of conversation, the Nd2 line this is all about. Nothing useful in your last... let's see... 3 posts? Completely useless.

But that's not surprising since you actually don't know much about that line, do you? So naturally you wouldn't want to delve too deeply into that debate, would you? 
i.e. you were speaking very arrogantly, in ignorance, my response to you is completely justified and instead of getting an attitude you should learn from this, and not act that way in the future.

And you have selective reading (similar to selective hearing, but in written form).

I said from the get-go that 2.Nd2 serves no purpose after 1...d5. There is no threat for e4 creating a big center because Black can simply trade on e4. You get the typical pawn setup you often see in the Rubinstein French as Black will need to play e6 eventually.

Each move needs to serve a legitimate purpose. In the French, White has already gotten in e4, and Nd2 is to protect it without Black being able to pin it. But it impedes development of the c1-bishop and a1-rook. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nd2, it threatens e4, looking to entice ...d5 out of Black. But in this case, there really is no legitimate reason for it. There is no reason to play this move first. 2.Nf3 is stronger due to flexibility. 2.c4 puts pressure on d5. 2.Nd2 truly does nothing here.

And then also, when you said I was talking about numbers, I was demonstrating why your basis for saying 2.Nd2 is .1 better than 2.Bg5 is hogwash, and gave a realistic example of a case where a +1.8 move is better than a +2.7 move for humans.

You will not win this. I have played far more than you have of over the board chess. I have far more knowledge than you (which is proven by your own posts), and I can tell from your inferior level of arguing that you cannot possibly be older than a Gen Z, and there is a good chance you are Gen Alpha. Both those generations have a lot to learn. I have seen way too many Gen Zers. 90% of them are morons. They don't even know professional manners. For example, in restaurants, "What do you want to drink boss ban?" - uhm, this is not a high school Friday night hangout - you don't call a middle-aged man "boss man". Everything about Gen Z and Alpha stoops down to this level, from communication to common sense to book knowledge in basic subjects like English and Math to chess ability.

Your arguments are weaker than an anorexic girl's ability to arm wrestle.

Well since you're just mindlessly repeating yourself at this point, insisting there are no ideas in the position, I suppose I can do the same - it'll save me time at least. 
In your mind I'm sure there can be no victory. And there are no ideas. Or any consideration of possibilities beyond your preconceived notions, for that matter. But luckily I'm not beholden to your mental / emotional attitudes, arising from the loss of plasticity that comes with aging.

Now theoretically... if we wanted to speak in these somewhat-useless abstract terms, we can say Nd2 allows white to push either e4 or c4, sometimes both, while being immune to pins via Bb4, or exchanges that damage the pawn structure. Whites DSB also defends b3, but isn't locked in. Alternatively, White can Fiancetto on the kingside while pushing c4 and not worrying about dxc4. Likewise white can play Qb3, and dxc4 doesn't tempo the queen. The queen here can also often rotate to the kingside, it happens. Or white can play b3 and, and since his knight doesn't block the bishop he will exert good control over e5 / his knight is already rotating over to reinforce Ne5. 
It also functions as a waiting move, allowing white to select certain favorable variations while not committing his pawn structure - i.e. selecting the specific Colle variations I outlined while not fully committing to e6. 
So yes, there are ideas in the position. And it's actually an extremely flexible system. 

But the arguments you give for it can be argued the same with other moves as well that are less committal.

The move c4 can be played right away, and so if you are going to play c4, how does Nd2 prep that? All it does is commit the knight and loses flexibility.

You want to promote e4 without allowing a pin. White has not played e6 or e5 yet. So what is the fear of a pin? If you want to get in e4 with there already being a pawn on d5, it will require more than just Nd2, so why not get the other moves out first that don't impede the rest of your development? So now you block yourself and still can't get in e4. At least in the Tarrasch French, which impeded development, the e4 push was already achieved. Your "ideas" can be achieved in a better manner. Impeding the development of the e-pawn, there is only 1 way. 2.Bg5, so it clearly serves a purpose that specifically cannot be achieved in any other way. That's the difference.

This is the problem with abstract theorizing divorced from the actual positions which arise. If black plays c5 I get a totally novel position which has nothing to do with d4/c4 systems. Why would I want to play d4/c4, which has been played 373 million times on lichess, when I can play a sharp line that has been played like 10 times? Or even the regular Colle, which has been played 88 million times - which the Colle I get is superior to in every way...? Why would I want to play c4/d4 clinging to my objective advantage, only to transpose into the Breyer slav later since I play the line anyway....? Why would I want to be totally boring, predictable and dense, like you are? Then I can spend the next 40 years slogging away to only gain 200 rating points.

The bottom line is you're arguing that a move which transposes with 3 respected systems - the french tarrasch, an improved Colle (avoiding the anti-Colle and early c5), and the Breyer slav - is somehow unplayable for... reasons. Or the sidelines with c5, which are incredibly sharp and obscure, where white will have the advantage simply due to prep and obscurity, and your admitted solution was just simply to avoid the lines. i.e. you have no tangible point remaining... you're not proposing a line that's problematic. You're hovering in the abstract, grasping at seaweed because you actually don't know the line well enough to discuss it in any detail in the first place. 
Maybe this debate will motivate you enough to pull up an engine and scrape together a tangible point, but that'll be a predetermined conclusion you came up with after-the-fact. 
The morons on this site are very numerous, I must say. Do I really want to join a chess club? Well if it's populated by autists such as the people on here.... perhaps not

Your argument might be valid if those were Black's only choices, but you must factor the consequences along with the benefits.

For example, take anyone that plays the Dutch. You can totally avoid the Staunton Gambit, Poisoned-Spike Gambit, 2.Nc3 lines, and 2.Bg5 lines by playing 1...e6. Therefore, 1...e6 must be the best move order.

This is the type of argument you are making. However, you don't account for other potential issues that you must deal with. In the example above, that would be having the play the French Defense or otherwise, vastly inferior lines like Owen's Defense (2...b6) or the Franco Benoni (2...c5 3.d5!). Having been a French player for 29 years, I have no issue with the French, and decide to deal with the French rather than the Anti-Dutch lines.

You say things are so great by facing an "improved colle" or Anti-c5 line or the French Tarrasch.

Actually, you still don't avoid the Anti-Colle.

1.d4 d5 2.Nd2 - Now, your claim is this great avoidance of 2...c5 because of 3.dxc5 (which is also the move after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nd2 c5). You claim a French Tarrasch Transposition (if 2...e6, then you are saying 3.e4) and then a Breyer Slav (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nbd2, which in your case, would come via 1.d4 d5 2.Nd2 Nf6 3.Nf3 c6 4.c4).

Then I assume your "Regular Colle" would be via 1.d4 d5 2.Nd2 Nf6 3.Ngf3 e6.

So you cover 2...c5, 2...Nf6 followed by 3...c6, 2...Nf6 followed by 3...e6, etc. You claim no Anti-Colle. Guess what - I challenge you to the Anti-Colle:

1.d4 d5 2.Nd2?! Nf6 3.Ngf3 Bf5! Here, 4.c4 e6 5.Qb3 isn't everything. Black can actually play 5...Nc6! here and 6.Qxb7?? is a blunder due to 6...Nb4, winning.

The committing of the Knight to d2 allows ...Bf5 without taking on c4 because the Knight cannot go to c3 to pressure d5. The whole issue with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bf5? is that White can trade on d5 and play Qb3, pressuring both b7 and d5. Here, with the Knight on d2, there is no pressure on the d5-pawn and the b7 pawn is under no threat due to the line mentioned above. A specific downside to the 2.Nd2 move order. And if you try to avoid ...Nb4 and threaten Qxb7 with a move like 6.a3, then 6...a6 tactically defends b7.

So it really doesn't avoid the Anti-Colle.

Lol, that position is not even a Colle. The move e3 has not been played. It's simply not a Colle, and hence not an Anti-Colle either, don't know what to tell you.

I'm not going to play a blunder 6. Qxb7 in the main line of this system I'm studying, obviously.

Out of about 24 original lines in this Wormsnake system you managed to pick the mainest of the main lines, which... the line is not bad for white, actually, but it just shows you're arguing for a pre-determined conclusion.

Example mainest of the main -

That's perfect play from black which will never happen, but I'm just indulging this.
Just so we're clear - at 2200+ rapid lichess there are 90 games ever played in the move 5 position here. It's about +0.05 of white - same eval as the Colle. Better than the Breyer Slav. You get an early Qb3 in... you have good activity, you have messy complications early. What is supposed to be so bad about this position, exactly?
It's identical to the Breyer slav except with e6 instead of c6. It plays very similar.

This position is no worse than any Jobava or Veresov which gets played all the time. Infact... it's objectively better. There is no easy pin, there's no knight blocking the c pawn unable to develop. I'd choose this over the e6 or c5 lines in the Jobava any day. And certainly over Nd7 in the Veresov. 
Heck, I'd choose this over the Colle, I haven't blocked in my bishop and I'm getting activity with the Queen / some early chaos that's reminiscent of some Jobava Ne5 moves. This is the worst I have to deal with? 
Actually yes, these are probably the worst lines in this system. 
Probably 60% of the original lines are very sharp and usually just winning. 

So this is the best you have, then? Very weak sauce here, more tomato was needed.

I never said it was the best. I was simply countering your statement about not being able to avoid the Colle.

You want the best? I could care less that artificial intelligence says this is equal. This is easier for Black to play, plain and simple. Give me Black in the following line. I will never get this over the board because I don't play 1...d5, but if I did, this would be the answer to 2.Nd2 if I personally am playing Black:

Dude, its not a Colle. White has not played e3 - it's not a Colle.

I don't play Nb3 there, I play e4 and it's one of the most chaotic lines in the system, actually. Nb3 is playing it the wrong way, too defensive. One small misstep like d4 - the most played move - and black is losing immediately here. All the lines are volatile like this. 
This is the benefit of Nd2, tremendous flexibility, along with a good defense of the king. You have 4 options in every line, and are free to get aggressive. Here e4 just happens to be good. -

Sticking with a formation for decades shows its effectiveness and deep understanding. Chess theory evolves, but classic strategies still hold value. The old Batsford book must be a great resource for timeless Tarrasch ideas.

But anybody that understands this position would know better than to play d4. This has many similarities to the fantasy Caro.

After 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 dxe4 4.fxe4 e5, White has only 1 good move. 5.Nf3, NOT 5.d5??

Here, Black has a couple of options. 4...Bxc5, 4...Nf6 (the move I would play).

So the fact that 4...d4 leads to a bad position is irrelevant.

You are playing "Hope Chess". You hope for anything screw-up by Black. That explains why you are way lower rated. You are around the same level of understanding as the fools that post unrealistic one-mover opening traps that are then saddened when 1 player out of 500 fall for it and they lose the other 499 games.

In this position, Black has 2 center pawns vs. White 1 center pawn.

Black has space advance + White Knight on d2 isn’t on it’s ideal square + White has blocked in their Dark Bishop.

If White plays e4, I think Black is doing great because the move e4 is only center pawn vs. center pawn trade.

If trade happens, Black will have 1 pawn vs. White having 0 center pawns.

Everything is great for Black.

What does white do exactly in this position?

Does White take the center pawn?

As Black, I think recapturing with the Queen is fine. It doesn’t seem like White position has any advantage. I would be more inclined to think Black is doing slightly better. Position is probably close to equal a little bit in black favor.

————————

I think Crazed is trying to bank on his opponents messing up.

It’s possible Black will screw up due to the line being so rare, but I think that is hope chess.

Hoping your opponent plays a bad move doesn’t completely justify the position.

If Black plays d4, I like White position better at that point. Black pawn center will become fixed and the position will be more closed allowing white to reposition its badly placed Knight to better squares. White can try to undermine the advanced pawns as well.

But again this is all based on a hope that Black plays badly.

————————

For the above reasons, I was thinking about the move c4.

The C pawn isn’t a Center pawn, but a Flank pawn. If a trade happens, it would even up the center pawn numbers.

Both sides would have 1 center pawn.

I checked databases + chess engine.

It looks like chess players + engines want to play the position completely different.

The moves e4 and c4 are not even on the radar it seems.

It looks like players and engines are trying to hold on to the extra pawn.

They are playing Nb3 or b4 moves defending the pawn.

Giving up the center to have extra C pawn.

Yeah, I suppose it makes sense.

I wonder if white can hold it or if they get in trouble if they try to hold it.