@26
"1 Nc3 is played a lot of games in rapid and blitz" ++ Also 1 a4, 1 h4...
"Rapport Horvart Zalakarov 2017 1 Nc3 d5 2 d4 Nf6 3 Ff4" ++ Jobava London
"Jobava Kelires Batimi 2018 1 Nc3 d5 2 e3 Nf6 3 d4" ++ A passive Veresov
"Oparin Fernandez Tianjin 2019 1 Nc3 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nxe4 Bf5 4 Ng3" ++ Yes
"Lu Harikrischna Shangai 2018 1 Nc3 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nxe4 e5 4 Fc4" ++ Yes
I also showed 2 ICCF correspondence games with 1 Nc3 d5 2 e4 d4 3 Nce2/Nb1
@24
"you just have to go by whether blitz or rapid is in the events name' ++ If blitz or rapid is in the event's name, then it is no classical game.
Yes captain obvious, another keen observation, but unfortunately not all events have either "blitz" or "rapid" in the name, do they?
"the Van Geet transposes into mainline openings that are all fundamentally sound"
++ If it transposes to Jobava, Veresov, Vienna, Closed Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann, Scandinavian then it has no independent significance. 1 Nc3 d5 2 e4 has independent significance.
Wrong again, its significance would be in allowing white to choose which 1. d4 or 1. e4 or 1. Nc3 unique line to play on move 2-3 after seeing the opponents move rather than committing to something on move one. And furthermore, a players e4 or d4 repertoire may have trouble adapting to the Van Geet depending on what they play. You know, because that's the value of transpositions. That's a chess term incase you weren't aware. Plus a unique line such as the Napoleon Attack, which is generally referred to as a better scotch, is obviously viable in classical as well - the scotch is played, the improved scotch which the engine likes significantly more is going to be viable.
It's amazing how hard some players will cling to conventional theory, theory which they just inherited from the community and tradition. Aren't you always the one encouraging players to "think" over the board? You should take your own advice, try thinking for yourself. Theory evolves over time, in good games this is usually the case, and certainly in chess it is - past dogma against 1... d5 in the Van Geet was dispensed with in 2016 when Jobava / Rapport proved the Jobava London is viable at top level, it is now widely accepted as a legitimate opening... this is not even that debated anymore, you just are late to the party here.
Keep trying!
Here's a list of some transpositional problems various moves have in the van geet. These are just the logical move order issues, it's not mentioning how most players even at 2000+ level botch the transposition in one way or another -
1... c6 - if they're a caro-kann or slav player they may have to face the jobava. If they respond to d4 not with 1... c6 but with 1... d5, and play against the jobava via the regular move order - i.e. 1. d4 d5 2. Nc6 Nf3 - they may not typically play the move 3... c6. So now they could wind up trapped playing a variation which is generally a strong one in the jobava. They could also end up facing a veresov which while 3... c6 isn't a strong line in the veresov you still need to know the line, if they play the typical 3... Nbd2 defense against the Veresov like many people do they won't reach that here.
1... e6 - we can also take the French player into a jobava or Veresov, and again if they usually face it via the regular move order the way many people do they may not play the 3... e6 variation against both these openings.
1... f5 - the van geet really shreds the dutch after 2. e4 in ways that go beyond even what d4 does
1... d5 - players will either have to face unique van geet lines, which generally requires preparation before the game... or more typical openings like the jobava - at whites discretion. If a players response to d4 usually avoids the jobava this could also be problematic.
For example, all these defenses avoid the d4/d5 chigorin setup and lack a useful transposition: benoni / dutch / English defense / mikenas defense / Englund gambit / sidelines in the chigorin Indian
1... c5 - for a sicilian player - they could face the two knights sicilian, which will only transpose reliably to the accelerated dragon / lasker-pelican / classical / four knights. So they'll need to learn the center attack against the two knights, which requires preparation before the game. While the two knights center attack line is viable, In cases where white thinks the opponent might prepare they can also just play the closed sicilian.
for a benoni player - this just won't transpose reliably
1... d6 - the pirc can be reached fairly reliably, it's just a bad opening so there's that problem.
1... g6 - the modern can be reached reliably
1... e5 - the Van Geet can just play the napoleon attack here, a unique van geet line the engine likes more than the scotch, generally referred to as an improved scotch. So e4/e5 and englund gambit players won't get much value from trying to transpose via this move order.
1... b6 - these setups can be reached reliably
1... Nf6 - the player needs to play e4/e5 and specifically the falkbeer setup against the Vienna for this to transpose for them. But if they do play those lines - they could also face a chigorin-indian setup here, which they may not run into depending on their d4 repertoire as we mentioned earlier.
1... Nc6 - if they usually play the Nimzowitsch defense they will do well and will generally transpose. If they usually play the mikenas defense this doesn't do well unless they also play the Nimzowitsch defense or the vienna max lange.
Man, I missed the Van Geetening?
What about the Van Skeet opening, where you rap Lil Jon while playing 1. Nc3? I hear it takes your opponent off-guard in tournament settings.
@Post #15
I never said the Jobava London is unsound.
I said the line is suffering.
—————————
The fact your computer engine says the line is 0.00 proves it is suffering.
A 0.00 engine evaluation would suggest white has lost his opening advantage.
Black has reached equality with out doing anything at all.
I don’t believe engines evaluations in the opening because they have been proven to be unreliable. However, I know you (Ibrust) seem to trust engine evaluation in opening so your own machine is proving my point.
———————————
I trust in Opening Theory which has been predominantly done, tested, and analyzed by humans. Some engines in recently years have helped, but a lot of what is considered theory has been done by humans.
It’s because of humans why I know the move Nc3 isn’t a good move.
After the critical continuation, Chess players have spoken about the below line for hundreds of years.
In the above position, the Knight has obstructed the C pawn.
The Knight on c3 is attacking d5, but white is lacking the help of the C pawn.
With out help from the C pawn, White will never be able to apply enough pressure on Black.
Black center will remain very strong.
Strong Chess Players have wrote about this and talked about this for many years!
———————————————
Best Case Scenario, White error has cost him his opening advantage which creates a situation where Black has gain equality effortlessly.
Worst Case Scenario, White error has cost him more than his opening advantage and has given Black a slight advantage right out of the opening.
Does these options seem good to you with White pieces?
—————————————
The OP of this thread asked for a honest answer is the opening bad!
Clearly, it is bad.
——————————
It’s bad, but sound and playable.
This is how we would describe it.
———————————
Jobava London isn’t like Queens Gambit.
Queen’s Gambit keeps the pressure on Black.
Jobava London doesn’t do anything to Black
——————————
Furthermore, Talking about high GM’s such as Nakamura and others is very misleading.
Don’t make no mistake about it those super strong GM are well versed in the Queen’s Gambit.
They know how to play it.
They just know with best play everything ends in a draw.
When you reach that point, you play stuff based on chess preferences.
———————————
Us Mere Chess Mortals should strive to fight for an opening advantage especially chess players below 1,900. Most people at such levels are not going to know how to draw.
Fighting for an Opening Advantage - Than trying to build off it during a game is very much a possibility at lower chess levels. You can slowly grind a person down.
Once, you reach into 2,000 range, your going to get a lot of draws.
I believe most 2k+ players average 90% accuracy games very consistently.
Draws are bound to happen when both players are playing very close to engine.
You might see players below 2k with a few games of 90%, but they are not very consistent which is why your more likely to get a win out of a stronger opening line vs. weaker one.
@31
"1... d5 - players will either have to face unique van geet lines"
++ No. 1 Nc3 d5 2 d4 is Jobava/Veresov.
1 Nc3 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nxe4 e6 4 d4 = French
1 Nc3 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nxe4 Nf6 4 Nxf6+ e/gxf6 5 d4 e6 = French
1 Nc3 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nxe4 c6 4 d4 = Caro-Kann
1 Nc3 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nxe4 Nf6 4 Nxf6+ e/gxf6 5 d4 c6 = Caro-Kann
1 Nc3 d5 2 e4 Nf6 = Scandinavian/Alékhine Defense
1 Nc3 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Bf5 is independent, but can transpose to Caro-Kann
1 Nc3 d5 2 e4 d4 3 Nb1/Nce2 is independent, I provided 2 correspondence games.
None of the Closed Scandi lines are independent Van Geet lines, they are all reachable via the Scandinavian. Everything after the transposition is 1. e4 d5 2. Nc3 occurs in the Scandi. You don't need to detail anything beyond 1. e4 d5 2. Nc3. What matters, though, is that black probably doesn't play the Scandinavian in a way that's serious. So within his repertoire it's going to, in the great majority of cases, be a unique line that he must face.
There are also other interesting options, like the Mexican defense, 1. Nc3 d5 2. Nf3. Yes, this can be reached from the Reti, but it is basically never played there. People play the KIA / zuckertort in the Reti. In the Van Geet it is a much more serious option - its mainline is more sound than the Closed Scandi, and as for its other lines, they're all transpositions to common lines - after 3. d4 it transposes w/ the chigorin, where it can then transpose into a variety of jobava / veresov positions, along with a few novel lines. Then it also transposes to the caro-kann two knights, a the main line in the two knights sicilian, or the french two knights. Recently I wrote a long post on the main position here the 'chigorin three knights', you can check out - Chigorin Three Knights Overview - Chess.com
The only move that gives black a slight engine edge here is 3... e5. Only about 4% of players respond this way, and the position is still fine, winrates are very good in this line -
Carry onward!
Ladies & Gentlemen.
We all know the Story of how the Jobava London & Veresov was created.
These lines were created at an Adult Birthday Party.
They was having a celebration with Adult Beverages.
They decided to play chess even though they was boozed up.
They was trying to play Ruy Lopez & Italian Game, but they moved the wrong starting pawn.
The poor boozed up souls!
—————————————
The Great American Painter Bob Ross has phrase which captures the essence of these lines.
The Phrase to describe the Jobava & Veresov is “They where happy little accidents”.
I am glad millions of chess players have experienced joy from playing these human mouse slip lines. I’m not upset. It’s completely fine.
This isn’t the first time a strong chess player under the influence played different line than what they was trying to play.
Lets not forget Ex-World Champion Alexander.
@Compadre_J
It isn't that I blindly trust engine evaluations, it's that I don't blindly reject engine evaluations. I very often reject the engine evaluation, I do this all the time all throughout my repertoire and go to great lengths to ensure every move I incorporate satisfies a variety of human factors... that's why I play the Jobava whereas you are adamantly opposed to playing it... it's just that I insist this rejection should not be based on some overarching dogma but rather a specific reason. And the reason should not be overly theoretical or based on some statement from a random player in the classical era like "Tarrasch said that I should never advance my d pawn...". I mean, alot of your philosophy is very classical and was undermined in the hypermodern era. Your philosophy also appears self-contradictory, as I've seen elsewhere you argue against trusting or using classical principles, yet that's not how you think about the game in this context whatsoever. But I suppose just the name "hypermodern" was the seal of approval you needed to step outside classical theory.
Opening theory evolves. Top level players - the people who establish and drive theory - do not agree with your assessment of the Jobava. What you describe is a very outdated concept of opening theory more in line with how chess was approached in the 90s than today. In most high level games you will see the player toss away their theoretical advantage at some point in the opening, when they bring the opponent into their prepared lines... in order to get the opponent out of book, and often in order to create dynamic imbalances and to attack. Doing this is not the exception, it is by far the norm nowdays.
Partly this is because the theoretical lines so often end in draws at top level. But there are other benefits - for example, it enables you to avoid the opponents novelties. An unforeseen consequence of the development of high level engines has been an explosion in the play of sidelines, because now a person can very quickly and easily develop a comprehensive theory for a sideline. Generally speaking prep predicts a games outcome much better than some theoretical advantage that will not get realized OTB.
Theoretically what the player gets from Nc3 is more activity early in the opening, a more stable queenside which will often support queenside castling, and the freedom to push the kingside pawns early. Infact, you often do not even want c3 played in these queenside castling positions, and the knight is a good defender of the queenside. Yes, there is an inability to advance the c pawn and play classically. Yes, if the opponent plays all the lines correctly the game will end in a draw. This is attacking chess, this is how it's played, the Jobava is not a classical theoretical opening, it is not played that way. If you were intending to play it classically than yes, that would be a bad idea.
Of course, this is something that has already been discussed exhaustively but apparently you still cannot accept it. I would only encourage you to go actually watch some high levels games and watch the players toss away their theoretical advantages on a regular basis, figure out why, modify your approach to the game and improve as a player, then come back and update your comments once you've figured things out.
Carry onward!
@Post #38
Look at what you said:
“Opening theory evolves. Top level players - the people who establish and drive theory - do not agree with your assessment of the Jobava. What you describe is a very outdated concept of opening theory more in line with how chess was approached in the 90s than today. In most high level games you will see the player toss away their theoretical advantage at some point in the opening, when they bring the opponent into their prepared lines... in order to get the opponent out of book. Doing this is not the exception, it is the by far the norm nowdays.
Of course, this is something that has already been discussed exhaustively but apparently you still cannot accept it. I would only encourage you to go actually watch some high levels games and watch the players toss away their theoretical advantages on a regular basis, figure out why, modify your approach to the game and improve as a player, then come back and update your comments once you've figured things out.”
Do you see error in your logic?
The OP isn’t 2,500 rated.
The OP is 1,500 rated.
You are trying to apply what 2.5k+ rated players do against other 2.5k+ rated players.
The high level players are throwing away their theoretical advantage because they know if they played normal their opponents would neutralize the advantage and ultimately draw the game
They are playing sidelines with a hope their opponent isn’t familiar with it and they can catch them off guard to get a win, but it could also have opposite effect and cause them to lose.
They are taking a Risk in order to win a tournaments prize, money, standing, and/or award.
Why should a player rated 1,500 take a Risk in an online chess game which neither involves winning prizes or awards?
Furthermore, If the OP played a line such as Queen Gambit which does carry more opening advantage pressure on Black, what are the odds of his opponents knowing how to neutralize and draw it?
——————————
Nakamura had a tournament where he was going to win 50,000 dollars.
Do you think if he plays a Queen Gambit against his rival opponents they wouldn’t be able to draw it? They have probably seen and studied Queen Gambit thousands of times.
So what did he do? He took a Risk played an unorthodox line which throws away all his opening advantage, but the reward if he could pull it off was 50,000 dollars.
Do you see? They are not throwing away their opening advantage for no reason.
They have a reason on why they are doing what they are doing.
———————————
You also have to remember some players are experts on certain lines.
Their are some Grand Masters out their who are so good in Slav or Queen Gambit Declined they have rewritten books on the subject and have revolutionized how people even play those lines.
Do you honestly think it would be wise playing Queen Gambit against those players?
It would be chess suicide.
Some of them have lines named after them.
Can you imagine facing guy who created a line and it’s named after him.
They are total monsters.
Familiarity with a line is going to help you play the line regardless of your rating or whether you're capable of proving a draw. Your opponents at 1500 will play standard positions much better than the odd and uncommon ones. It says alot that you haven't experienced this yet - you should try stepping outside your very narrow concept of the opening, and experimenting more. This is why the Jobava has such a great winrate. The Jobavas winrate is far higher than the Ruy Lopez's winrate at club level. Throwing off the opponent is not something that is only useful at 2500+ level, that is nonsense.
It's not 2500+ where you start running into people that know the lines really well, it's more like... 2000 I would say. Depends on the line really, it varies. But when you're 1800+ and go to create a viable repertoire you don't want to have to recreate it once you reach 2000.
That said, I don't just aim for obscurity - it depends on the line really - the classical sicilian is not a common sicilian, but there's plenty of theory in it. Same with the QGA. These are somewhat offbeat but still you can also go very deep.
Half the time in that post you almost made my case for me, but then you try to stop short of the natural conclusion. But no, you can't stop short.
I've played strategy games of various kinds for about 25+ years... at one point I was a GM in a game called starcraft 2 (maybe that's equivalent to like an IM in chess, the player pool is larger in chess, I don't know exactly, they're both just as competitive, but anyway). When I was still developing as a player I took your approach to the opening. I wanted to play in a way that was theoretically very sound and winning... I played this way probably for 5 years or so. I capped out at top master level, but could never beat GMs or reach GM. And I tried very hard to push into GM, but could not. Like 12 hours a day of practice gaming, almost every day for 2 years or so... this was back when I was in college and could manage to slack off. Anyway, after years of watching the korean players... (best players in the world at that game) they always played in such chaotic and obscure ways in the opening. There was always something novel. Very different than Americans. But they generally crushed Americans. I initially tended to just dismiss how they played as tournament tricks. But I also noticed in my games against GMs, something that always characterized them is they would do something I'd never seen, without fail. They screwed me up... and not just in their initial novelty, but really in the way the entire game would unfold afterwards as a result. Gradually I started to appreciate more the human elements of the game... I then wanted to do something unique, so I developed a new repertoire with the new philosophy - consisting of some offbeat novelties in the opening, attacking but not haphazardly or unsoundly... there's an element of chance but then there's a detailed followup... the followup is actually the main point. That is the part I hadn't realized when I dismissed the novelty. In chess, that's the preparation. It was a major step forward, within about 3 months I was crushing top masters and had a 60% winrate against GMs in the game. I beat the rank 3 GM on the North American server with this approach, a guy who eventually competed in the GSL (global tournament of elite players)... This forever changed my approach to strategy games. So as someone who actually came to this realization - I just view it not as something GMs do situationally but more of a fundamental difference in approach to the game, it is really just the better way to play the game.
@Post #41
Since, you felt like telling some back story. I will tell you some of mine so you can get a better understanding on why I believe in a different approach to yours.
I have been playing Strategy Games for 25 years as well.
In Fact, I reached a ranking of 2,700 in the game Checkers.
My checkers ranking is the equivalent of a Super GM in Chess.
I have had the privilege of playing against Worlds #1 Checkers player in Causal game.
I even talked with him at the time.
——————————
Now prepared to be shocked because the game of Checkers has been solved by engines.
The Top Checker Engines in the World have solved Checkers which means as a Checkers player you have to be 100% relevant on Engine telling you right from wrong.
Everything engine says is final because game has been solved.
This means my transition from Checkers to Chess was very difficult because I had to go from completely trusting and relying on engine in checkers to realizing engines are not very reliable in Chess. They can get stuff wrong in chess.
———————————
Furthermore, The game of Checkers has checkers openings and they have been ranked from best to worst and the ranking is absolute.
The best Checkers opening is undebatable and undisputed.
I reached 2,500 knowing how to play 1 opening in Checkers.
I Mastered it to the point I knew ends and outs of it.
I would win or I would draw.
I reached a point I couldn’t lose in that line.
It didn’t matter what they did or what surprised they tried to do.
They was crushed or drawn by me.
My ranking got so high on some websites that when I drew with an opponent it seemed like a loss because of the amount of points I would lose in comparison to them.
———————————
Do you know how I got to 2,700 from 2,500?
The game of Checkers introduced restricts to the game in order to prevent massive draws.
When you sit down at checkers board and play what ever you want, they call that play as you go checkers or free for all checkers.
BUT when players played free for all checkers - they kept ending up in draw because everyone wanted to play the best lines
So the game of checkers introduced a restriction which prevented players from playing their starting moves. They would write opening moves on a paper. Than shuffle up all the papers in a hat and you had to pick a paper.
The paper you picked would tell you want moves to play.
Image sitting at chess board, your fixing to play your move.
Than someone rushes out and says you can’t play a move because left to your own devices you will draw. So what you have to do is stick your hand in his magic hat and play the moves from card you draw.
‘The card would say your first move is 1.b3
Your opponent first move is 1…d5
Your second move is 2. Nf3 and your opponent move is 2…Bb2
Now at this point you are allowed to play what ever you want to play.
It happens in Checkers - 3 move Restriction.
——————————————
I gained ranking points because I was strong player, but I had to learn other lines which I previously had no interest in learning or understanding.
All it did was show how much better I was in various lines vs. 1 line against my opponents.
——————————————
The point I am trying to make here is what if Chess gets solved?
What if Queen Gambit & Ruy López are proven to be best lines in all of chess!
Than massive draws will come and Chess Federation might have to step in similar to Checkers federation and out law the openings.
They can add restricts in chess - they are in charge of chess - they have the power.
——————————
I believe everyone including the OP should 1 day play Ruy López or Queen Gambit.
It is considered the best and your allowed to play it.
A day might come along when your not allowed to do it.
It is 100% possible!
———————————-
This is why I feel a player should have at least 1 power opening under their belt.
You don’t need every line to be best, but at least having that 1 line to collect the wins and reduce loses can be a game changer.
The opening I learned as my Ace opening is Ruy López.
I was never really 1.d4 player as much so Queen Gambit never really was on my horizon, but the Ruy López is the line I studied and studied and forget theory on and had to relearn theory I forgot.
Chess isn’t solved yet so we don’t really know what best lines are, but a lot of players would say Ruy or QG is at the top and so yeah - I think all side line stuff can wait.
———————
You said it yourself you was top player playing theoretically best stuff in StarCraft 2.
You just wanted to go above being top to being super star player so you tried side lines.
Same thing happen to me I was at top playing 1 line.
I played side lines to go above the top status I already had.
But the OP hasn’t reached the top and for a lot of other players they haven’t reached the top either. They need that 1 powerful theoretical line to push them to the top.
That is 1st step right?
———————
This is why I am not in favor of the Van Greet at all!
‘It’s like you said
@Compadre_J - there is benefit to throwing off any player, good or not so good. Anyway, chess isn't really like checkers because chess has a type of complexity checkers does not. Chess is so complicated that even if it were "solved"... which would require a level of computing power we do not have, not even close currently - that wouldn't actually effect high level play. Because, for one, most lines would be draws. Secondly, no human would ever be able to comprehend the complexity of the proof, with all the branches they'd need to know to follow it. And again, you'd just get players playing obscure moves, like they already do, throwing off the opponents prep endlessly. There is no human being that will ever memorize chess deeply enough to hard solve it OTB.
Chess is a bit of a special case, it's so complex that even the theoretical lines can throw people off if they're good positions. Though conceptually the opponent will still be grounded in the right ideas. But I don't mind playing a theoretical line - QGA and classical sicilian are theoretical lines - still they're not that common as far as theoretical lines go - not like the najdorf or the ruy lopez.
However, the Van Geet is an exceptional case because people have dismissed it, and have so little clue how to play against it, that any concern about its objective value goes straight out the window when... for example, the player ends up transposing into a sicilian but doesn't play the sicilian... or the 2000 rated player winds up in a falkbeer gambit and plays 3... Nc6, or makes a common error on the 6th move and loses in 15 moves. The french defense player ends up transposed into the 3... e6 line in the veresov when they always play 3... Nbd2 in the veresov. In my games this sort of thing is the norm, it has happened much more than it hasn't. I can see the opponents games afterwards and check how the transposition effected them... probably 15% of players handle it well would be my guess. I don't even really know the lines yet but I'm already having great results, I can't imagine what it will be like when I actually know the lines.
The best lines you'll ever play are the ones that are complex, tricky, have a solid followup, and which your opponents have never seen... That surprise factor will last a while, but not forever, while it's there though you should capitalize on it. At some time in history, hundreds of years ago, the Ruy Lopez had this surprise factor. The Van Geet has that surprise factor still.
It's true that 1... d5 is the most testing move against the Van Geet. It's actually the only testing move against the Van Geet. If you consider a Jobava to be the testing move of something, that says quite alot about it. But even here, white has all the advantage in terms of familiarity and knowledge. For example, I'm sure you have a defense prepared against the Jobava / Veresov. Hopefully for your sake it isn't the main Veresov line 3... Nbd2, since you just won't reach that from here. But in this position very few players will even be thinking about a potential transposition to the Jobava or Veresov and whether they're going to be consistent with their existing repertoire. So what do you play next? -
I can't say anything about checkers. I don't know anything about it. Maybe you can actually memorize it.
That definitely doesn't work with chess. If it were that easy, you would definitely be able to play the 5-piece endgames perfectly, e.g. R+P vs R or Q+P vs Q or BB vs N. I don't even want to talk about the 4-piece endgames (Q vs R).
And you would have already done with the 7-piece endgames. 7 pieces are nothing compared to 32.
@Post #43
Ibrust wrote a good post, but it was lengthy post.
I was planning to respond to it, but I needed to wait till I had time available to do so.
I think my previous posts have caused a little bit of confusion.
—————————
I, personally, don’t play 1…d5 against the Van Greet opening.
The reason I don’t play 1…d5 is because I am more of a Hyper Modern Chess player.
The move 1…d5 is more of a Classical Style of Chess.
——————————
I was told by Title players many years ago the move 1…d5 was and still is one of the most critical lines against 1. Nc3.
Classical Chess believes in occupying the center with pawns.
Their are only 2 Center Pawn moves for Black e5 or d5.
I was told the move 1…e5 isn’t as good for Black because worst case scenario White could bail out by following up with 2.e4 and they would be in a Vienna Game.
The Vienna Game is considered a very solid and good opening.
White can play other moves, but if they play 2. e4.
They have lost nothing!
The move 1. Nc3 hasn’t been exploited or taken advantage of in any way because the Vienna Game is very solid line and the fact it can transpose into it wouldn’t be seen as a hinderance or negative aspect in the white position.
———————————
The same can not be said for 1…d5.
The move 1…d5 occupies & attacks the squares the Knight on c3 is attacking.
It can also create a dilemma for white on how to respond.
If White was to follow up with 2.d4, Black would argue it has exploited White opening move.
The position has transformed into Queen Pawn Opening and the most challenging Queen Pawn opening lines involve a pawn in d4 + c4 which the Knight on c3 has obstructed the C pawn. This is the justification Black will use to say they have achieve a small victory!
A bunch of small victories can add up to big time lose for the opponent, right?
Black has merit in what they are doing. This is why the position is critical.
———————————————
Now, Ibrust asked what I play.
He thought I played 1…d5, but I really don’t.
However, I do want to answer his question.
————————
As a Hyper Modern chess player, I don’t like occupying & attacking the center with Pawns.
Instead, I like to attack the center using Pieces.
I use Minor Piece to Pressure the center often from a distance.
The move 1…Nf6 attacks the squares the Knight on c3 is attacking.
It is a very combative line.
The other move I have played against Van Greet is 1…g6.
The move 1…g6 has a completely different idea vs. the other moves I have shown you so far.
The Classical move 1…d5 is occupying d5 & attacking e4.
It’s trying to challenge White Knight on c3 for ownership of the Light Center Squares.
The Hypermodern move 1…Nf6 is attacking the d5 & e4 squares using piece pressure.
It’s trying to challenge White Knight on c3 for ownership as well.
The Hypermodern move 1…g6 is very different.
Its not trying to control the Light Squares at all.
What the move does is create a sort of agreement!
Black is flat out saying if White wants to own all the Light Squares that’s totally fine as long as I get to own all the Dark squares.
A chess board is split with half the squares being light and other half being dark.
If Black can arrange a situation where they can own half the color complex of a chess board, it is a small victory in their favor because normally Black isn’t given such a luxury.
———————————
If White is a good player, they can’t allow Black to control the Dark Squares.
They are going to have to be greedy, but it might not be so easy!
You can see how these lines appeal to me.
They are Hypermodern and Hypermodern lines tend to be a little bit more sneaky.
The lines can be very clever, but they are also more mysterious.
——————————————
I checked my chess history on another website I play on.
I have played against the Van Greet about 20 times in all.
19 Games out of 5k Total Games.
Van Greet opening seems to be very rare for me.
I haven’t faced it a lot.
My win rate against the Van Greet with the Black pieces is 92% with 8% draws.
It seems based on my small sample size that I have never lost against the Van Greet.
I win or I draw - It seems to be the case.
Out of 19 games, I played 1…d5 only 1 time and win that game.
Out of 19 games, I played 1…Nf6 4 times with 100% win rate.
Out of 19 games, I played 1…g6 8 times with 88% win rate & 12% draw rate.
The remaining games was all won by me, but the move order wasn’t technically a Van Greet.
I had 6 players play the above line which is sort of similar, but slightly different.
It started with 1.d4 and transposed into this which I think it could happen from a Van Greet.
I decided to include the lines.
———————————————————-
A very interesting thing I was seeing was the below position.
Lets say the above moves was played:
Can Black claim they have achieved a small victory?
The move Nc3 hindered White ability to play c4 (Marcozy Bind)
————————————
Black is playing a Hyper Accelerated Dragon.
In the normal move order, White can play the M.Bind against it.
Has the move 1.Nc3 hindered White ability to play this powerful line against Black?
I would argue it has.
Once, again the C pawn being on c2 and not having the freedom of being able to go to c4 has given Black and opportunity, I think this would be a small victory for Black.
This below diagram is an example of a Caged Binded up Dragon.
This below diagram is an example of UnCaged Dragon free to rain down his fire and terror all over you.
The move 1. Nc3 showing it’s dirty little head again.
We can see why this move isn’t played a lot.
It’s only 1 move, but it has lasting effects.
A strong chess player will try to squeeze out any advantage or victory they can.
@Compadre_J Well it's just a closed sicilian with 2... g6 we're talking about, perfectly sound opening played at the highest level. But against 1... g6 there I just play 2. d4. After Bg7, played in almost all cases, this just transitions right into a typical modern with Nc3 / d4 / e4. Black can pretty much always play the modern if he likes, so I'm not too worried about facing it.
After 2. d4 black could push d5, people rarely do. It leads to this early exchange line, but this is part of your typical queens pawn chigorin already, white is doing fine here -
But if white wanted to play e4 he could, he'd just need to push d4 earlier and transpose with the early queen attack line in the hyperaccelerated dragon, which is fine for white... white scores well here, it simplifies too quickly which is why I prefer d4 but it's certainly playable -
As for 1... Nf6 - there I just play a vienna, the falkbeer gambit is such a small, tight opening that I'm not worried about transposing with what I play against 1... d5. In my experience most players don't see this transposition coming -
You can play a pirc from 1... Nf6 too, but I'm more than happy to play that.
The Van Geet restricts your options within-e4 and within-d4. What you get in return, though, is the ability to choose between d4 / e4 / in many cases unique van geet lines. So even when the restriction of your e4 option, for example, is slightly bothersome - like against the accelerated dragon and the Kan - you can usually just choose the other option. The transpositional power in the hands of white is a worthy tradeoff.
As for your argument that the c pawn belongs on c4 - again it is an odd argument for you to make while simultaneously exalting hypermodern chess. Anyway, we can apply your same logic to the london, which also does not place the pawn on c4. But the london has been played for a long time at the highest level, it is considered by everyone to be a sound opening, it's been used in world championship matches. The knight on c3 is meant to support either an early e4 pawn break, or queenside castling - both of which are generally much more aggressive than classical games with the pawn on c4. That is the nature of the chigorin position. If we follow your logic to its conclusion, it suggests that one should not play attacking chess. I have a newsflash for you - there is not simply one way to play chess, we are no longer in the classical era of the 1800s.
@Post #46
I want to address something very quickly because I think you might be misunderstanding.
Your saying the below statements to me which I find a little unusual.
As for your argument that the c pawn belongs on c4 - again it is an odd argument for you to make while simultaneously exalting hypermodern chess.
I think your not understanding what I am actually saying because my argument isn’t odd.
My argument is a very normal argument.
Let me start off by saying do you agree every move in chess has advantages as well as disadvantages? Every move in chess can have a benefit and it can have a draw back.
Now when a person plays the above move we can say the move has some benefits.
You even wrote some of the benefits the move has.
The knight on c3 is meant to support either an early e4 pawn break, or queenside castling
We can even add more benefits to the move Nc3.
- It is a developing move.
- It attacks the center light squares with piece pressure.
———————————————
We mentioned several benefits the move has, but what are the draw backs?
- Nc3 can support an e4 pawn break, but nothing is preventing white from playing e4 directly.
- Nc3 has committed the Knight to c3 square which loses the knights flexibly because a situation could arise where White would have preferred to be able to play Nd2.
- Nc3 blocks the b2 diagonal. White might be less likely to play b3 + Bb2 due to Knight being in front of the bishop influence.
Now, White might not have any intention on playing b3 + Bb2 that’s not the point.
The point is we are zooming in on the Knight and we are creating a list of all the good and bad merits of the move.
- Now, Finally, What other disadvantage does knight on c3 have? It obstructs the mobility of the C pawn. The pawn on c2 could be important in some line to help support White center d4 pawn or the pawn on c2 could be important in some line to help add pressure to Black center d5 pawn. The Knight on c3 has put the knight in the way which means if White ever wishes to play a c3 or c4 move. They will have to take a time out to move the knight before being able to move the pawn and the tempo lost to move the knight out of the way could be different between losing or winning a chess game.
It’s not odd for me to say the above things because in chess your supposed to exploit your opponents weakness. What have we been doing?
You have been showing lines on how Nc3 can be good.
I have been showing lines on how Nc3 can be bad.
How did we do this? By looking at the pros and cons of the move.
Obviously, if your going to play move like 1.Nc3, you should be aware of both aspects of the move. The good and the bad.
This is why going over the lines can be beneficial.
I have no intention of ever playing the move 1.Nc3, but I do need to know how to tear it down from Black side perspective which is why I have been looking at ways to punish it.
I don’t care if it’s move 1 - the move Nc3 isn’t a top tier opening move.
I want to prove starting at move 1 how bad it really is!
This whole experience has made my question my handling of Black pieces.
I been playing 1…g6 & 1…Nf6 with 92% win rate & 8% draw rate.
Maybe, I have been to easy on 1.Nc3 players.
I should be at 100% win rate.
I let them squeeze out some draws.
I need to look at the 1…d5 lines more closely.
I am now looking at the following position:
I can feel the Gruenfeld line speaking to me in that position.
- Bg7 attacking d4
- c5 attacking d4
- Nc6 attacking d4
- Bg4 attacking white knight on f3 defending d4
- Double on D file to attack d4
I’m can bring pain to white center!
It gives me goose bumps just thinking about the fun I would have in such a position.
I’m make white center crumble.
What is even more amazing is White doesn’t have an e4 pawn.
In the normal, White Gruenfeld line White center comes under heavy fire, but they do have a big center to justify the pressure.
White doesn’t have big center here!
How is white going to deal with this is the real question?
You know what peeps?
I just realized something astonishing!
I think I have been playing against 1. Nc3 in a different move order.
I have been playing 1. Nc3 g6
I was thinking on my post #47 that I should delay g6 to add in d5 as it seems to be more restricting to White.
I was thinking about 1. Nc3 d5 2. d4 g6
However, I just had a remarkable discovery.
Observe the following position:
I have reached the above position a lot in my chess games.
The position starts off almost like Trompowsky Attack, but it seems to transpose into Veresov.
The above position could be reached thru 1.Nc3!
The following moves I like to play are:
By playing Nbd7 before g6, you can avoid pawn structure damage.
I actually am very familiar and like above line for Black.
It makes me wonder about Nc3.
I might play it similarly and just delay g6 for few turns.
The above would transpose and if they play Bf4 instead I can just play g6 right away.
Very nice lines!
@24
"you just have to go by whether blitz or rapid is in the events name' ++ If blitz or rapid is in the event's name, then it is no classical game.
"the Van Geet transposes into mainline openings that are all fundamentally sound"
++ If it transposes to Jobava, Veresov, Vienna, Closed Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann, Scandinavian then it has no independent significance. 1 Nc3 d5 2 e4 has independent significance.