Why so many forums about van geet?

@Compadre_J

"- Nc3 can support an e4 pawn break, but nothing is preventing white from playing e4 directly."

e4 dxe4 Nxe4 is a pattern that occurs in mainline theoretical openings, such as in the Paulsen french... which is probably the most standard french. When the knight takes back you have a centralized piece and accelerated development. Why doesn't white always play the advanced french, why does he usually prefer 3. Nc3? Obviously there is some benefit to accelerating your development / pushing c3 and cementing your queenside pawn chain, even if it costs the e4 pawn. White will often then castle queenside in the french... much like the chigorin here. This is probably the most theoretical line against the french... Do you know what the french rubinstein is? It's the same position we're talking about here, with e6 instead of g6 played... the engine scores the rubinstein +0.25... the position you're examining here is +0.25. It's a perfectly fine position, you can play it - I probably would play it too if I was a modern player, but it's not some theoretically winning position the way you describe it, white is perfectly fine theoretically in this line.

The modern defense is not the most testing line against 1. e4 or 1. d4. It's not even close honestly, the engine scores it like +0.35... it's alot worse objectively than the majority of other e4 defenses. People win in the modern because they have more experience in the lines, and the lines are tricky. In the line you're examining, a rare sideline, they won't have more experience... there's also a different pawn structure. They won't be undermining the center, white will play c3 and blunt the bishop. Since the position is somewhat open there will be alot more piece play than your typical modern.

Anyway, we wouldn't design our repertoires just to focus on beating the modern defense, or reject a line if there was some slight disadvantage against the modern defense. Just by playing the modern black has already ceded the ideal engine edge or theoretical edge, if he is able to land back in a normal position that's novel... transactionally there is no real loss for white. So the whole conversation here is again contradictory kind of irrelevant.

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.

The situation you refer to doesn't occur in this position.

You can make these sorts of arguments for practically every move if you want. The problem with these sorts of arguments is they're too abstract and theoretical. In an actual position there are too many factors to account for them all abstractly, you have to look at the lines and talk about the actual position. If you want to look at one of the pseudo-winawer variations where Bb4 is played early on against the chigorin... white has quite good ways of handling those lines, usually he gets e4/d4 in and occupies the center, he can then play Qg4 or e5 > Qg4 and get early counterplay against the vacant kingside. That forces some concessions, or it just wins... The most testing pin variation occurs in the Jobava and Veresov, after black has developed. This is probably one of blacks better approaches against the Jobava, the position is about equal.... But here I play the Veresov, I like the way it handles this more - blacks knight is pinned by Bg5 and white has time to deal with the Bb4 pin while black is untangling himself from Bg5... admittedly it's an equal position but we already know that about the Jobava / Veresov.

I don't understand why you are so fixated on just the particular pawn structure that occurs in the Grunfeld. There are many, many different pawn structures in chess, leading to many different types of games. Your position there isn't going to be the same type of game as a Grunfeld. For example, did you go any deeper into the lines and figure out that you really need to double your f pawn? You're correct white doesn't have an e pawn - neither will you.

If you try to avoid doubling your f pawns here's the engine line. This exchanges pieces a little too quickly for my taste, so I'd probably want to avoid that, haven't looked at this variation deeply enough yet... but I can at least tell you I'll be playing Bh6 here -

Maybe you just try to tuck the bishop back in... well now white is actually way better than your typical modern, leela thinks it's +0.60 ... there's not a concrete followup, you're just generally too slow. In your pie-in-the-sky analysis you underestimated the value of whites rapid development and opening of the position. Here's one line -

Looks to me like you really need to play this, where what you were going on about earlier - white not having a central e pawn - you have neither a d nor e pawn, and c3 is played, there is nothing to undermine, and this is not anything like a grunfeld. Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting novel position and it looks fun to play from both sides. But this should be an example of why abstract theorizing is not really a good way to approach analyzing the opening. The abstract thinking is useful when you're making ambiguous decisions in a game, it was certainly useful in the pre-engine era too, but not when you have the luxury of doing in depth concrete analysis outside of the game -

I've taken up playing 1 Nc3 as white, and 1...Nc6 when I have black. However, not many games yet. I think I'm going to stick to it. I'm about to stop playing everything else. The Jobava is indeed a good option for 1 Nc3 players. After 1 Nc3 g6, if not 2 h4, then h4 is probably coming soon. After 1 Nc3 f5, 2 e4 is attractive.

the fundamental problem with half the commenters is that they only see 1.nc3 as a transpositional tool. playing 1.nc3 only for that is probably more restrictive than its worth.

the best way to play 1.nc3 is to aim for independent lines if possible and if black plays lines where a transposition to a main line is preferable ,to do it then.

i play 1.nc3 a lot, and by far the most common line is the van geet 1.nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 (which idk why people are calling it closed scandinavian, the fact its the main line of 1.nc3 since forever whereas its only a sideline of the scandi, should give naming preferences to 1.nc3, especially since it has no resemblance to scandi positions). i almost never see 1.nc3 d5 2.e4 c6 or e6 transposing to french or caro. occasionally you see 1.c5 but not as often as you think.

if you not aiming for 1.nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 and 1.nc3 e5 2.nf3, i must question if you are benefitting from playing 1.nc3.

Of the 4 common responses from black 3 of them have noteworthy and fairly unique followups - 1... c5, 1... e5, 1... d5 - you don't have to play every unique move to benefit from playing some of them...

No, the transposition is probably not more restrictive than it's worth since at 2000 elo the great majority of players I run into are misplaying the transposition.

Anyway, what is this cloudy idea of "restrictiveness" based on - some theoretical set of openings a person could potentially play? Well what if the player doesn't intend on playing those other openings regardless...? The openings transposed into are commonly played e4 and d4 openings in their own right. This is another pie-in-the-sky argument. Whether the restriction is relevant for you depends on what your actual preferred repertoire is, if you broadly prefer e4 and d4 positions with Nc3 - like if you already are a Veresov or Jobava player - then any restriction is not relevant for you.

And the move Nc3 is restrictive within-e4 and within-d4 but allows you to choose between e4 and d4, and unique lines - every move in the game is committal, the relevant question is what are you actually committing to.

Btw Carlsen played the Jobava out of 1. Nc3 d5

Carry onward!

Welcome on board the Van Geet train.

I think the Jobava is a better transposition against the french / caro-kann, since these players will encounter it much less frequently. Even if you don't play the entire Jobava just learning the c6 or e6 lines is worth it here in my experience. French players in particular have seemed to handle the transposition badly. The e6 veresov line is a viable option as well

if you play vienna, there is no advantage in playing 1.nc3 over 1.e4, if you play jobava, there is little benefit in playing it with 1.nc3 over 1.d4. why restrictive? if i aim for a vienna, i can encounter it quite often by playing 1.e5 , whereas only occasionally can i get it via 1.nc3, not only that by playing 1.e4 my opponent should have no idea if i want to play an italian, a ruy, a scotch etc or a vienna, whereas after 1.nc3 nf6, my opponent can anticipate at most two main replies, the early 1.d4 ones and the e4 ones. same reasoning applies to jovaba/veserov where 1.d4 is more unpredictable.

Your logic here is very bad.

a) if you play 1. e4 you must play all of 1. e4, if you don't want to do that - if you want to benefit from the unique lines in the Van Geet against responses other than 1... Nf6 or possibly 1... e5 - if you'd rather not be playing the main lines and all your opponents prepared responses against 1. e4 - then right there you have an advantage of starting with 1. Nc3. So what more babble and justification is needed here?

Now, I play the napoleon attack against 1... e5, but against 1... Nf6 there is not a unique Van Geet line, so when we've spoken about a Vienna transposition throughout this thread it's been in response to 1... Nf6. However, your claim that there is no benefit from transposing into the vienna - even from 1.... e5 - is still nonsense.

b) By playing 1. e4 you're not forcing a player who plays e4/e5 to prepare something against the most common openings in chess - the Ruy Lopez / Italian - which they play every other game, they already are prepared. But by threatening to play the chigorin, positions that are themselves much less common, you probably are forcing them to prepare something. So no...

c) the transposition also limits your opponents options for throwing you off. For example, if d4 your opponent could try to surprise you with the englund defense, if e4 your opponent could surprise you with the french or caro-kann, or nimzowitsch defense... sidelines they may already play, could be occasional play or even their primary weapon. But if, after 1. Nc3, they try to play a french or caro-kann you can in turn surprise them with a Jobava or Veresov transposition. If nimzowitsch defense you can transpose into the napoleon attack or the chigorin. So you apply your logic in one direction with a very critical bias against white, but it's completely irrational.

d) you're assuming the opponent is prepared for the transposition, in actual fact they usually are not. The transposition is often not straightforward - I've gone into detail about the mexican defense and 3 knights chigorin setup... and I've explained repeatedly the value of transposition, for whatever reason you completely write off that aspect of the game as having no value whatsoever, this thinking is idealistic to the point of being mindless, in reality your opponents will not always handle the transposition perfectly

If you're to the point that your opponents are always well prepared against whatever you do at all times you probably need multiple different opening systems anyway. GMs usually do play many different systems for this reason. So in this context, at that level, Van Geet would just be one of many systems that you play. Van Geet has alot of to offer on this level as well - because it transposes into common defenses it will contribute to other systems you may choose to play, and can reduce theory needed there. Furthermore, let's say you're a 1. e4 player and you do want to mix it up - playing a 1. e4 heavy version of the Van Geet will require alot less theory from you than switching to something like 1. d4.

e) I've never heard anyone claim the Ruy Lopez throws someone off and wins the preparation battle better than the Jobava or Veresov, that is a new one. The preparation battle is really the entire justification for ever playing the Jobava / Veresov. Your claim really just seems patently absurd but okay. They both are large defenses but you see one frequently and the other rarely, so... Anyway, isn't your argument becoming that a player ought to overburden themselves with more theory, not less...?

Merely having the possibility of playing something, but never actually playing it, is not going to throw off an opponent. If an opponent is preparing against you they are looking at your past games.

Even if it were for some reason necessary to mix it up with... let's say d4/c4 specifically - for the prospective d4/c4 player who plays the chigorin as their main opening let's actually compare how much of that theory you avoid by playing 1. d4 2. Nc3 instead of 1. Nc3 2. d4. Infact, it turns out to be a very minimal amount. We've already discussed this but I'll repeat it for you - the only noteworthy 1st move sidelines in 1. d4 you'll need to face, which you won't often encounter via the Van Geet, are the old benoni and the englund defense. Two very crap defenses. Everything else - the pirc, the modern, and so on - you already encounter either via the chigorin or the Van Geet itself. There are not really that many significant respones to 1. d4, it's really just 1... d5 or 1... Nf6. If 1... c6 I could already transpose into the caro-kann if I wanted, I don't have to play a slav. If 1... g6 or 1... d6 okay we're in the modern or pirc, which can always be played.

I already figured out how I plan to try and refute the Van Greet!

It might not be a full refutation, but the line certainly does well.

I have played the above line in the past with great results.

I showed the above in post #44.

I tried playing g6 sooner on move 2 which was on post #43, but I think Ibrust showed some interesting lines White could play against it which made me consider just delaying g6 for extra move or 2.

The above position isn’t horrible, but it does seem to give White more counter play.

Delaying g6 another turn or 2 seems to be the way to go for me at least.

I still think the Jobava & Veresov lines are bad and the win rate for White doesn’t seem great in the delayed g6 lines I am talking about.

Black seems to be doing great in above position.

————————————

The only question would be what happens if White plays e4 instead?

I think if White was to play 2.e4 instead of 2.d4.

I would take the pawn.

I don’t have any faith in the pushing line for Black.

I think the below position wouldn’t be my style of play.

It looks like White will move Knight and play something like d3 and try to generate a counter attack on Black center pawn.

—————————

After the trade line, I think white position will be an inferior vs. of a Scandy line.

I have seen players play 2. Nc3 vs. Scandy which I have always condemned as an error.

The above position is same position with different move order and it seems like trash to me.

After the d5 & e4 pawn trade, The Light Square diagonal a8 to h1 looks extremely great!

As Black, I would want my LSB to be their.

I was looking at the move b6, but it seems to be failing tactically.

The Queen move seems to devastating.

The move I am looking at now which seems crazy is Bd7.

The more I look at the position the more I think the position is reminding me of a French.

A French Rubinstein Fort Knox Variation - White hasn’t played d4 so I don’t know if this would be an improved or inferior version for White.

I am thinking inferior version though because the move d4 would give white more space.

C4 + D4 with D5 push seems like only real pawn break for White in this position.

Once, Black plays Bc6, I don’t see how white will ever get that pawn break in.

It looks like Black is one having all fun.

Black will have d5 square under lock & key

- Bc6

- Nf6

- e6

- Semi-Open D File for Rook & Queen pressure.

White position is different though so maybe they have to play the line different.

I am saying Fort Knox position because I am seeing similarities, but this is unique position.

I have never played or seen this position before, but I am just reading the board.

A board with d5 & e4 pawns missing means the A8 to H1 diagonal isn’t being obstructed by pawns which would normally happen. This means any Light Square Bishop on the above diagonal is overly powered in scope and activity vs. normally. This logic applies to both White & Black side players. It just so happens to be Black turn in above diagram so Black might be able to jump on diagonal first.

A Hypermodern player would call this a Chef’s Kiss!

The Knight on e4 is also undefended so a Bd7 to Bc6 will come with tempo on Knight.

———————————

Another way of playing was with Bf5.

This attacks undefended Knight as well.

This position seems to remind me of a Classical Caro Kan position, right?

Its the favor I am picking up, but It does make me wonder.

Their is a line known as 2 Knights which can cause Black trouble in Classical Bf5 line.

It’s a trappy devastating line if I remember correctly.

The above line is bad line for Black if I remember right.

Black Bishop gets buried on like h7 and they have to play like g6 or something.

Its a nasty position to say the least.

White would probably be happy with this line though.

your reasoning is terrible, for whatever reason you fear having to prepare agaisnt all responses to 1.e4 1.nc3 allows, virtually ALL the same ideas but with less critical lines. 1.nc3 d6 1.nc3 b6 1.nc3 g6 1.nc3 a6 1.nc3 c6 etc etc. you are narrowing down your replies considerably by playing 1.nc3 in these so 1.e4 is much better if you play 1nc3 for traspositional possibilities, the same if you prefer early d4 nc3 lines, agaisnt 1.d4 your opponent must prepare vs torre, london, tromposky, colle, stonewall, veserov and jobava besides the main line 2.c4 and delayed c4 lines. by starting with 1.nc3 you have guaranteed your opponent that only 1 sub variation of of d pawn openings can be played, the veserov/jobava constellation.

take the simplest example 1.nc3 nf6, this has virtually reduced all the oppenings that can played to either a vienna, a veserov or a jobava, everything else is quirky for no good reason. compare this with 1.d4 or 1.e4 where you can choose whether nc3 is superior to an alternative in a lot of these transpositions. you aint tricking anyone by playing nc3 this way, they are restricting your options more than you are restricting theirs

Fort knox line looks alright, I'd say it's an improvement over the french fort knox actually - you could always transpose with e6 but that's not necessary and there are other options. However, I wouldn't avoid a line due to fear of the fort knox, even an improved one. It's an interesting position but not something to reject a line over.

g6 is not my favorite line for white, I find it a bit grindy and boring, but it's certainly playable.

Jobava vs. g6 - that's the Barry attack ... this line can actually get aggressive, believe it or not. Though the aggression tends to fizzle out and go nowhere. There's a Tarzan variation which can be interesting too but I'm not convinced.

But in general if you take away all of the surprise / unpreparedness factor from the Jobava / Veresov what you're left with is an equal opening. So yes, if you are going to prepare specifically against the Van Geet... you will find equality. However, it is telling that you've been playing chess for as long as you have, and only now have been so motivated to make a serious attempt at preparation - after you find yourself emersed in this debate.

But this is also why I think transposing into these lines from the Mexican defense adds another layer of value.

It should also be noted that black has other options.. which your preparation does not include, and I doubt many peoples will. For example, there's this rare line, the main line of the Amazon attack... again equal but there are opportunities if you go deep into the lines -

But I will acknowledge I'm not thrilled when I see g6 in general.

As for Bf5 vs. the closed scandi exchange - that line is actually quite good for white. I don't like Ng3 though, the line you were examining is actually a better version of the main line caro-kann for black since c6 has not been played, black can delay that and play c5 in one move. So he is just up a tempo. But I like Qf3 which can lead to complications. The Van Geet is an attacking opening, and if there are opportunities to go for these rare complications they should be taken, it's in the detailed followups white generally hopes to find his advantage, not actually in the opening novelty itself -

In general the scandi is not a very strong defensive objectively, the fact this line is objectively sub-optimal within the scandi doesn't mean it isn't fine here or that we should evaluate it the same in the Van Geet.

Anyway, I'm happy with the mexican defense setup I showed earlier but plenty of people are playing the Jobava with success these days, I think the closed scandi also plays very well in my testing of it. The fort knox variation is a reasonable idea - though if I were going to seriously prepare against the closed scandi I think I'd stick with the pawn advance line - if you actually know that line it gets unpleasant for white. The real issue is people just don't know the line.

Well some of this will be me sounding like a broken record, since what you're responding to already addressed your response on multiple levels. But here goes attempt number 2-

a) The pirc / modern / owens defense / st george defense are not critical lines. And 3. Nc3 is probably the most standard, common move against all of these setups anyway, it is not some major loss to play Nc3 there. So this is just a bad argument here.

I would never avoid an opening because of how it fared against the pirc / modern / owens defense.

The caro-kann / french are critical lines, but there I'm transposing into the Jobava / Veresov. And infact, there's a unique 3 knights chigorin line against the caro-kann I can also play. So no, not the same idea, not an e4 line.... wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

But even if I wanted to play the french or caro-kann, both the paulsen french and the two knights or mainline caro-kann (with Nc3) are main lines... But again I'm not restricted to them, I can choose the Jobava, which I usually do.

And even within the caro-kann, after Nc3 you can play the rasa-studier gambit, the two knights caro-kann, the mainline caro-kann, the goldman defense, and some other lines...

The sicilian defense - most common response to e4 - the two knights sicilian is alot trickier for black to navigate than the standard sicilian. They can only reliably reach their preferred sicilian if they play the old sicilian - we can avoid the najdorf, kan, dragon, lowenthal without compromising anything. If you really go to lengths you can even avoid some of the old sicilian lines. And this is all assuming they play it correctly, which I don't assume but you do for some bad reason. But no, there is independent value here, you're wrong again I'm afraid.

Of course this is all based on your very flawed concept of value where we assume transposition has no value whatsoever, a bad idea which you have not justified on any level.

Again your logic just fails on a basic level, because you are comparing all possibilities after 1. d4 with only the d4 Van Geet lines rather than the entire range of Van Geet possibilities, which can include lines from e4, d4, and unique lines. So this is just not a balanced or sound comparison. Yet another failure of basic logic. Will you ever learn how to think? Probably not.

Btw - I already addressed this point when I compared the amount of theory a 1. d4 2. Nc3 chigorin player saves if he wants to switch it up to 1. d4 + some other move, vs. a 1. Nc3 2. d4 chigorin player. It's actually very little. Just the old benoni and the englund, two crap defenses. It's actually not much, because 1. d4 2. Nc3 does not have much in common with 1. d4 2. c4. Nor does it have much in common with the Torre, Trompowsky, traditional London... just the 1. d4 sidelines, which generally can be handled in a Van Geet way. Apparently that point went completely over your head, even though I just explained it to you...

And again, are you suggesting that the mere possibility of playing a line from your move order is going to intimidate a player into preparing for you against it, without you having ever played the line...? That is an absurd notion. Players will prepare against what they see you play. You will need to know it and play it to intimidate people with it. So are you planning on learning all of d4/c4 in addition to the Torre, Trompowsky, Chigorin, Colle, and everything else 1. d4...? Well then why are you letting just the additional burden of learning the Benoni and the Englund stop you from playing the Van Geet? That's a very small burden by comparison to what you're suggesting.

You are not burdening the opponent with needing to prepare more by threatening to play the Ruy Lopez / Italian, everyone already plays that.... and any black player who plays e4/e5 is already prepared to face the Ruy Lopez / Italian. It is complete nonsense to claim that playing 1. e4, the most common move in the game, somehow will burden your opponents into having to prepare more against you. Literally over half of players play 1. e4 on the first move.

In reality - not this abstract thought bubble of your concept of the game, but reality - players are burdened more by the need to prepare against defenses they do not see frequently.

And btw - why are you assuming we're facing an e4/e5 player? Because that only will be the case about 20% of the time.

And did you ever consider that maybe I can also prepare for the opponent...? So if I see they're an e4/e5 player do you think I'll play a vienna or a Jobava? Which do you think would throw an e4/e5 player off more - a Ruy Lopez or a Jobava?

Honestly this shouldn't be so difficult to figure out.

Anyway, alot of my arguments actually already addressed your response, which shows me you didn't fully understand the problem, I've repeated a few in this post but I don't want to go back and rehash them all... but I encourage you to go reread and think a little harder before you respond any more.

Btw I missed this little gem of ignorance you said earlier.

This is based on a very shallow understanding of the Van Geet.

At 2200+ on lichess you'll encounter the vienna in about 19% of games after 1. e4, where the opponent responds 1... e5, vuala you're in a vienna.

You can transpose into a Vienna from 1. Nc3 the Van Geet after black plays 1... Nf6 (22% of games), 1... e5 (8%), and 1... Nc6 (2%). So superfically we would say that 32% of your games have the potential to transpose to a Vienna. But this doesn't tell the whole story either...

Because the position 1... Nf6 2. e4 transposes w/ the alekhines defense, specifically the alekhines scandinavian. In the alekhines here black will often play 2... d5 (about half the time), avoiding the vienna and moving into unique lines there as part of the alekhines defense strategy. Here white can transpose into a mirrored napoleon attack with 3. Nf3. But a 1. e4 player often does not know how to play this, so black as an alekhines defense player may welcome this. Another response is 2... d6, going for a pirc instead of the vienna. Altogether, from the alekhine defense player will usually avoid the vienna, as they want to avoid mainline e4/e5 theory, and you'll only see 2... e5 here about 23% of the time on lichess.

But this is of a sample of alekhines defense players. Very rarely do Van Geet 1... Nf6 players turn out to also be alekhines defense players wanting to avoid e4/e5 theory. Infact, they typically either a) don't know what they're doing (the more common case), or b) they are e4/e5 players looking to transpose into the vienna. Either wray, they typically do respond with 2... e5, and we're in a Vienna. It's been very rare that I see black respond with 2... d5.

So in practice you actually reach the vienna about ~30% of the time from the Van Geet I'd say, if you want to reach it. You can reach it more often than from e4/e5 actually.

Furthermore... even if black were to play 2... d5, and avoid the vienna... you're getting a position that's generally regarded as quite good for white. So by avoiding the vienna... we get something even better - i.e. your point against this vienna setup flops again.

But there's another layer to this... because if you're playing the napoleon attack, which you shold be as a Van Geet player... what you should really do is only play the vienna against 1... Nf6, and against 1... Nc6 go with 2. d4 or 2. Nf3 (which can transpose into the napoleon attack). This way all you actually have to play is the falkbeer vienna, not the entire vienna. The falkbeer is generally the better, sharper and more punishing variant of the vienna than the max lange. And here you'll get a vienna probably... I'd say 18%ish of the time - most Nf6 players want the vienna. So comparable to e4/e5 now, but you're just playing half of the vienna instead of the entire thing, and the preferred half.

So no, reaching the vienna via 1. Nc3 is a significant improvement on multiple levels, just as far as the vienna is concerned. The downside is you must figure out how to deal with 1... d5. Not what you're claiming.

nc3 is inferior vs the st george, the owens, an arguably the modern and dramatically limits your options vs the other moves, what part dont you get ?
have you ever prepared agaisnt an opponent? keeping a throrough book reply agaisnt 5 or 6 variations is much harder than agaisnt 2 especially, if they are not critical lines. its not just about "catching someone by surprise". Those 20 moves of theory you learned for a mainline or two dont come from in the brain cpu. When you see nc3, you immediately rule out the most memory cost expensive lines as neither the vienna nor the three knights are known for being critical.
people see jobavas and viennas WAY more than they see 1.nc3, you are not burdening anyone by prematurely narrowing down your options. At least with 1.e4 i can choose a vienna on my terms with 1.d4 i can choose the jobava/veserov on my terms. anyone not rated 1200 immediately knows you gonna transpose to one of those two after a move like 1.nf6 or 1.d5 
No one is taken by surprise by 1.nc3, there is nothing to be surprised about yet. surprise only happens when you play independent lines when your opponent thinks you have nothing better to do than transpose.
seriously what level of patzer sees 1.nc3 and then ends up by move 5 surprised the game is a vienna all of a sudden lol. Anyone with a modicum of opening knowledge can narrow down the transpositions that make sense. which is exactly in line with what i said, using 1.nc3 only as a transpositional tool is just limiting options for no good reason.

im a master who specializes in 1.nc3 as part of my main repertoire, idk what your credentials are but im gonna guess none too relevant on the topic, since reason wont persuade you i will leave it at that.

3. Nc3 is the top engine move against the modern and the pirc. And against st. george 4. Nc3 is the top engine move. This is according to leela. Just some basic research would have told you this and you would not have made the ignorant comment you just did... this coming from the 1. Nc3 expert all of the sudden who doesn't undersand the first things about the opening apparently.

The only point here you have is that Nc3 is slightly suboptimal against owens defense... instead of +0.43, it's just +0.37 against owens defense. I do not care about this... generally I don't care about any of these defenses since they aren't the critical lines, not even close. I know you're an owens defense player but I don't design my repertoire to counter your owens defense, sorry.

You better fall back on an appeal to authority pretty soon because your logical reasoning ability is not getting you anywhere. But as I've said before, you are proof of what is commonly known - that a player can get to NM without actually thinking very critically about the opening. We can see that from your lack of basic understanding throughout this conversation...

Oh yes, I'm sure that in your little imaginary bubble that you consider reality a player who sees this position is always immediately thinking "what version of the Jobava or Veresov do I want to transpose into now?". That's not how the game is played in reality but you're a dogmatic dunce, need I say more?

Btw - how shallow is your concept of transposition that you believe its only value is in causing confusion?

What if a player - gasp - does not play the falkbeer vienna, but prefers the Max Lange instead? you said yourself that 1. Nc3 restricts our options - it also restricts blacks options.

What if a player plays 3... Nbd7 against the Veresov, and I avoid that move...?

What if a player prefers the philidor.... or the benoni....???

Again - did you ever consider that I can check these things before the game, and I can prepare too...? Hell online I can even check them during the game.

Probably 80% of the vienna games I've transposed into from the Van Geet have not led to the main line, people are playing 3... d6 and 3... Nc6 all the time, and that's at 2000 level, it is complete nonsense to suggest that all the players who play 1... Nf6 in response to 1. Nc3 are universally intending to play a vienna and know what they're doing. At 2200+ level 32% of players play either 1... Nf6 or 1... e5 in response to 1. Nc3, only 19% of players play e4e5 - there's a disconnect there, we can just look at the statistics and know that you are incorrect. And about half of e4e5 players play the Max Lange, not the Falkbeer...

And btw - your notion of surprise is also superficial - we're also dealing with depth of preparation, which gets into commonality... and we're also sidestepping the opponents ability to surprise us. Something you do not consider whatsoever.

You're a dunce dude, you have no idea what you're talking about, just a random person who somehow made it to NM by rote memorization and tactics but who will never make it past NM because you lack authentic thinking ability, I don't need to look at your rating to tell that I can just talk to you and it becomes evident very quick.

And in what world do players keep 5 books of openings just to counter you specifically? I've never played online chess like that, I've never heard of a tournament like that either. But what a player will do is keep a defense against the most common openings in chess prepared, like the Ruy Lopez or Italian. But they will already do that regardless of whether you're playing e4 or not. I've said this multiple times, I don't understand why it doesn't register, it's very obvious... Anyway, if this level of prep were a problem I'd just adopt a second system - again for switching to d4/c4 we're just additionally burdened with the englund / benoni, and for e4 we already have significant overlap. Van Geet is actually much better for combining with a second system than something like e4 would be.

nc3 vs modern is debatable, nf3 allowing the choice of c4 is considered superior by many, not to mention 3.nc3 allows the sniper (not theoretically alarming but moves which allow more options to your opponent for no good reason are often deemed inferior.

i have no idea which engine you consulting about the st george, the ideal formation vs the st george is known to be nf3 bd3, qe2, c3. nc3 is not to be played. Vs the owen's nc3 eliminates the most critical lines.

of course im gonna fall back on authority, your reasoning is terrible. I'm a master who uses this opening, and if you study any 1.nc3 master worth their salt from Van geet to Andreikin you will find that they play in the same spirit as i, you aim for independent lines when you can, and transpose otherwise. a few of the real mavericks like Mestrovic try as hard as they can to never transpose but results favor the mixed approach. i know of no master that plays 1.nc3 regularly solely for transpositional reasons.

1.nc3 d5 2.nf3 lmao genius, no one has ever thought of this, except after the simple 2.nf6, white has now been narrowed to play it like a white pirc with nc3 quirkily thrown on, or 3.d4 which has eliminated all counterplay with f3 which is crucial for both Veserov and Jobava.in fact, in the mexican defense 1.d4 nf6 2.c4 nf6 3.nf3 is the easiest way to ruin blacks plan and after 3..e6 4.a3! blacks best play is probably g6 with a funky KID like line, not great but maybe okay-ish for black, but the equivalent play from white is just unacceptable

you never seen me play, you have no idea what you are talking about, but the fact you not a master prettty much tells me all i need to know about your play

if i had a quarter every time some non-master thought they were being original

it's leelas suggestion on move 4 against the st. george by a very wide margin. Like it's +0.37 and the second move is +0.21, so not even close. Leela - probably better than whatever engine you're using, I believe she's higher elo than all of them so... the line goes about 12 moves deep, it's relatively forcing and it leads to a significant advantage for white. Your "knowledge" here seems to be outdated or maybe just nonsense, who knows.

Again you can debate and quabble about all the Pirc and Modern theory you like, they're just not the critical lines for testing the repertoire against.... I'm picking a move against the Pirc which 90% of masters play, broadly considered the main move, and sticking with it / moving on, fear of the Pirc is not based on some objective eval problem but based on experience in the lines... I don't need to mix it up with 3 different moves against the Pirc, and I'm not discarding a repertoire due to how it handles the Pirc, that'd be the dumbest move... besides there are like 10 different viable moves after 3. Nc3 against the Pirc anyway, not like you're lacking in options against hypermodern setups.

The irony of this conversation is I'm looking at your games and you don't even play the Two Knights sicilian, the unique van geet line... you transpose into the closed sicilian. Very lame... you should take your own advice and play a real Van Geet sicilian.

I already know you're going to fall back on appeals to authority, it's what you tried in the last debate and it's all you had left because your argument was shredded there too.

Top level players play obscure moves in every opening just to get their opponents out of book, when they play the Van Geet they play things we're not even talking about like 2. g3. I think I saw a carlsen game where he played that against 1... d5.

Now, I've never suggested a player should use the Van Geet solely for transpositional purposes, so that'd actually be a strawman in our conversation. What I've suggested is that a) your claim the Van Geet has nothing to offer a pure Vienna player is nonsense, I happen to think the unique Van Geet lines are mostly better but that's a separate conversation, not logically related to your claim; b) against the most testing move, 1...d5 we should probably play our most testing response. Because, you know, the unique van geet line is quite bad if someone is prepared against it - which won't happen often, but it could happen. And that's probably why Carlsen played the Jobava out of the Van Geet... Carlsen who has alot more authority than your or I, not that we need to rely on some mindless deferral to authority when we can use our reasoning ability...

No, against all whites responses Nf3 has a viable purpose. There's a detailed post here on this setup if you want to educate yourself - Chigorin Three Knights Overview - Chess.com

But in short, against blacks common moves -

c6 Jobava - Nf3 is a common move here, the knight jumps into e5 and we followup with f3 / g4. The knight doesn't stay on f3.

e6 Veresov - Nf3 is a fine move here, the most common moves here usually transpose into a paulsen french where Nf3 is the main line. Otherwise you may get a two knights veresov which is probably the best response to Nbd7. So Nf3 is fine here

c5 - it's just the main line in the two knights sicilian

Bf5 - this is a unique line where you can play Ne5 immediately, it's at least as good as other knight jumps in the Jobava and scores on par with them, infact you can sometimes play g4 in one move here.

So no, you're just showing your ignorance here. We do usually push f3.

You sure do make a habit of speaking with confidence in ignorance, don't you?

Btw - the engine actually likes the mexican defense better than the closed scandinavian. Weren't you advocating that defense earlier...? Weren't you going on and on about the importance of playing unique lines? Looks like you've contradicted yourself.

The line here you gave 1.d4 nf6 2.c4 nf6 3.nf3 is not even a coherent... line. I'm going to assume you meant 2... Nc6 or something.

For white this is just the two knights sicilian... it's actually the main line there. It can also be reached from the Jobava, though there are other options in the Jobava. But this is a critical line played at top level, it's equal by the engine, really not unlike the rest of the Jobava, infact I saw a game just the other day with alireza firouzja where he played this line... so no, again your point is complete nonsense. Just all pretense and no actual substance behind what you say.

Furthermore, as a Van Geet player you should be playing the two knights sicilian - because again, by your own logic, this is the more unique Van Geets sicilian line and it maximizes the value of your Van Geet opening. So you already play this line regardless.

I guess I have to explain this to the "master 1. Nc3 expert"

And you don't play a pirc here, usually you'll play a3 and threaten dxc5, black will play e6... if he doesn't you'll play dxc5 and reinforce with b4. After e6 you might play b4 anyway and get some counterplay on the flank. Your knight can sometimes jump to b5 as well, threaten Nxc6 and then reroute to d4 at times. You have good control over e5, and blacks c pawn is traded off, your knight is on a nice outpost... There are some interesting complications, and it's certainly playable - which is why it is played.... a fact you don't appear to know.

You're an NM and we can see how you can't follow basic logic in a conversation about the opening. We can see how you're all pretenses and no real substance or critical thinking ability. I think the reality is chess is such a well established game theoretically that a player doesn't really have to think very much on their own to reach a high level of mastery. I mean, you have an engine to do your thinking for you and you have 500 years worth of established theory to go along with it. You really don't have to be that good at reasoning about the opening to play at a 2200ish level. I've heard multiple GMs say as much, usaully they say you can play whatever you want until about 2400 level or so. Anyway -

Keep trying!

The National Master isn’t lying about the Modern Defense!

3. Nc3 in the Modern Defense allows Black to bring the Thunder!

You need to know the perfect engine defense or it’s going to get nasty!

The Sniper on g7 has locked on a target!

—————————

I have seen people chicken out in the above position.

I have had a lot of people play Nf3 going for transposition into Open Sicilian!

Haha - They don’t want to go down the other path!

What a bunch of 🐓 - Baka Baka

What are they afraid of?

Engine says white is fine! - Haha

Thats great line to play as Black so much fun!

In that position I just take the pawn and it's the pterodactyl. It's rare, it looks interesting, but if you know it you'll be fine.

And you can also reach the pterodactyl from the two knights sicilian, so you should know it anyway.

Nc3 is the most common move against the Pirc played in 90% of master level games dudes, sorry I am not afraid of the Pirc. My only fear of the Pirc comes from whether I'm prepared for it to the same degree as my opponent, not something objective about the position. Luckily you run into the Pirc quite alot as a chigorin defense player - like 20% of games ... you get good experience against it. I'm not worried.