I play this usually. Doesn't seem like there is a refutation. Tends to transpose to 1e4 openings. To ...e5, you can transpose to a Vienna. ...c5 you can transpose to a Sicilian and it is a little hard for white to avoid a Sicilian. ...d5. 2. d4 becomes a Veresov, and usually I play a Blackmar-Diemar gambit, giving black the option to play a French or Caro-Kann. 1...Nc6, 2. e4 is a Nimzovitch and black can transpose to a Vienna. 1... Nf6, 2. e4 is an Alekine's Defense Scandanavian variation and black can also transpose to a Vienna or a Pirc. g6 usually become a modern or Pirc. 1...a6 usually transposes to a St. George and the Nc3 may be somewhat misplaced, but you can't refute 1.Nc3 with that.

There are various times it gets out of the book fast and you can avoid transpostions. I like it because I like Alekhine's defense type positions with my knights out versus pawns and also open and gambit positions in the transpositions. Also, often gets black off his standard response to 1.e4.

Was wondering why this opening isn't more popular. Seems to transpose to 1.e4 openings like 1.Nf3 transposes to 1.d4 and 1.c4 openings. Not sure how black can easily equalize against it or put white in a difficult position.

I found your reason. Well, probably not. More likely it's because it just looks weird, and many times people don't like taking that knight out right away. I mean, who plays the Vienna (besides me), or closed Sicilian (besides me), or the BDG (not me... yet)? These are all much less popular than their Nf3 counterparts, so getting stuck in the Nc3 openings isn't something more players are willing to do from move 1.

1.Nc3 d5 seems like one reason among many. 1.Nf3 is often used as a move-order into pretty mainstream openings; that's not so easy to do with 1.Nc3. (Because using the c-pawn to control the center is so useful.)

For example, what are you gaining here by playing 1.Nc3 as opposed to just 1.d4?

If you play 1.d4, black can play Nf6 and e6 and play the queens Indian, Nimzoindian, or QGD. With Nc3, d5, you get a more open game and lines your opponent may not be familiar with.

I used to play 1. Nc3 extensively. 1. .. d5 is an interesting try but white has some even more interesting options. For instance:

1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 d4 3. Nb1!?

It seems like a strange move but I had incredibly good results against many very decent players from this position. White's play is just so easy. He will play: Bc4, d3 and then f4 at an appropriate time with very easy and dangerous play to follow. If black doesn't play very accurately on the queenside then white can also often manage to slide the queen's knight onto a ridiculously strong outpost on c4 as well.

I stopped playing 1. Nc3 because of 1. .. c5. I couldn't find a single satisfactory response and I don't think there is one. Well besides transposing into the open sicilian but if I'm voluntarily playing the open sicilian playing some strange move like 1. Nc3 doesn't make so much sense as 1. e4 must inherently be more fundamentally sound.

Yeah, what Sholar said pretty much. 1.Nc3 is a reasonable way to cut down on the amount of opening lines you need to know as White. Prerequisites: a) you like tactical positions b) you don't mind Black equalizing if he has some idea what he's doing.

DIR: What are you playing in reply to 3.-Nf6? One could try 4.e5 but no one plays 4.Nb1 after 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e5 d4 4.e5 Ng4 5.f4 and maybe now Qd5 is interesting. Maybe just 4.d3 but it's not very tempting to be in the position after 1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5 3.d5 with an extra Nf3 thrown in

you could play the veresov proper then, i think this would cut down your opponent's possibilities more than yours. You wouldn't have to worry about the Sicilian or the Vienna.

1. Nc3 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4
1. Nc3 c5 2. Nf3 lets you avoid the Najdorf (2...d6 3. e3), and Black can't play Nc6, e6 without one of (a6,d6,Nf6) first, which avoids some lines in that direction too, right?

1. Nc3 c5 2. Nf3 might avoid the Najdorf but 2. ...Nf6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 d5 is probably more equal than the Najdorf.

What do you play against caro-kann and french set-ups? 1.Rc3 d5 2.e4 c6/e6

I don't know about that opening, but there is a 400 page monograph about 1. Nc3 by Harald Keilhack that has got excellent reviews: http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_rev...nger1_nc3.html

There is an English language edition too afaik.

another point is: If you want to go into the open games as black against Nc3, 1. Nc3 Nf6! is a way more reliable route than 1. Nc3 e5. Then 2. d4 is the Veresov (what was the reason not to play 1. d4 2. Nc3 again? Back can't avoid it anyway without having the French or the Pirc in his repertoire, lines you can't really avoid after 1. Nc3), 2. e4 e5 the Vienna and 2. Nf3 Nc6 just delays the inevitable.

I'm not arguing 1. Nc3 c5 is bad for white or whatever, just that if you are going to play the Veresov against 1. ..d5 then the move order is kind of redundant.

I played all of Bd3, d3 and e5 with no particular preference. The idea of the opening certainly isn't to secure an opening advantage but to simply gain an interesting middle game. Those are all playable and all lead very distinct and interesting positions, not necessarily positions I'd want to play against a prepared and strong opponent though.