Why is Nc3 considered so much worse the Reti?

I am not sure I agree it's passive. I have seen a lot of aggressive players get very aggressive positions out of Nc3 systems.

And I am not sure how ensuring options like many transpositions is a weakness. I use to play 1. e4 with 2. Nc3 all the time. And I see absolutely zero difference between my system and your technical transpositions. The Caro-Kann for example has a deadly queen sac variation that mates in the first ten moves. And if black doesn't take the queen he gets into a theoretical hell in which he probably wishes he never got into. And the best known theory is black staying passive and keeping everything closed, and even offering a bishop exchange to help keep the position closed.

I am not going to claim one is better than the other. I am nowhere near strong enough to pretend I know the answer. However.. In my experience 1. Nc3 is just as good as 1. Nf3 or any transposition to it up to 2300 at least. I know this because I have played it in practical OTB games from both sides and through transpositions against players in all of those levels.

It's cool to state an opinion. But I really think that is all most people here are doing. And the only reason 1.Nc3 is even considered worse is literally the popularity.

BTW How exactly do you guys post the games like you do? Are you linking the database with a link?

Ever tried a reversed Reti?

would not it weaken the kingside drastically

You can play a decent 1.Nc3 but completely out of different reasons than using Reti patterns.

@MeWantCookieMobile Thank you for your opinions.

"There are plenty of new wave theory that top players are playing where Nc3 is an active part in playing."
I have yet to find a single one that claims that 1.Nc3 is the best move, or that it even compares to 1.Nf3 favorably. GMs play stuff like 1.Nc3 to throw their opponent out of preparation, not because they think it's particularly good.

"Not everything has to be a glorious matter of playing c4."
Indeed, but c4 is a very useful move in fighting for the center. Removing that option for yourself by playing a premature Nc3 is considered inferior.

"I don't even remotly agree that 1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 gets black an advantage. Especially considering the only line you consider is Ne2 and Ng3"
Yes, there are other lines. Like 1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 d4 3. Nb1. I just mentioned the most popular approach. But if you want to explain why 3. Nb1 and others deserve discussion, please feel free to do so.

"And that you think after 1. Nc3 d5 that 2. e4 is the only way to fight for and advantage or equality"
I never said that. I just said that a lot of people take that approach. At the position 1. Nc3 d5, the most popular move by far is 2. e4.

"One example is the Two Knights French which is basically a possible theoretical transposition into your line. 1. e4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. Nf3 d4 4. Ne2 c5 5. c3"
Actually, I don't see how my line transposes into the two knight's french at all. My line usually goes like this: 1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 d4 3. Nce2 e5. At no point do I play a e6 there, so I'm struggling to find a french. Help please.

@blind_man_walking

1. When did I say "you" would play into a french? I said it is possible to transpose into. I am not sure your 3. e5 improves anything.

2. I understood your point that "most people might play it" however, this doesn't prove theory as most people are "1500 players". Hardly theoretical.

3. 3. Nb1 is not exactly an alternative to Ne2 and Ng3. Have you ever looked at hypermodern theory?? And no I don't mean the openings I mean the actual theory and ideas?

4. No.. Playing a "premature" Nc3 is not considered inferior. 1. b4 and 1. g4 are considered inferior. But let me ask you. Can you honestly tell me you can refute 1. b4 and 1. g4? Because I can't.. I have tried.. It's more possible you are simply underestimating the move. Beside that, I play severely delayed c3 systems. I know a good amount of very strong players who play delayed c3 systems. Playing Nc3 on moves 1-6 are hardly taking c3-c4 out of the picture.

------------------------

I suppose we could say that if you put 1. Nc3 into chessbase it would have a bad stat, but that is all it would have is a bad stat based on lack of popularity. It doesn't really prove anything about it being inferior..

To prove my point even more, if you place 1. Nc3 into the database and follow "your" line. It literally has pretty much every move in your theory as top moves in the masters database. Can you guess what the result is practically? Yes, seems it's all right around 30% win loss draw. Ending this as exactly what I said which is "theoretically equal". Funny enough.. There is even a debate for my move which is after 3. .. e5, there is a move for 4. c3 and it has two games where one game win and one game loss. Again suggesting equality. Average rating is 2300. So, how can you claim Nc3 is inferior? Just posing obvious questions in a scientific way. And if you simply want to say you were stating an opinion, I can most certainly accept that.

Edit: Hmmm I looked at all the moves and all the moves were consistantly about 30% even from move 1. I should look at the chessbase version and see if it matches. I will post when I get it.

Okay here is a break down with your moves from my chessbase 14:

1. Nc3 - with 11k games there is a record of about 50% as 1. d5 being the top move played. The best move according to theory in chessbase is actually 1. .. c5 with a 45% win ratio after 6200 games.

1. d5 - The best two moves after this is 2. e4 and 2 d4. Both are about 50% 2. e4 is almost exactly 50% and 2. d4 is 49.3%. So we will go with your next move.

2. e4 - So looking at this we have an interesting split:

[2. .. d4 at 48.6%
[2. .. e6 at 43.5%
[2. .. Nf6 at 45.2%

Consider this as going from white's side. So the lower the score the better for black.

If we suggest that one should be better than the other in practical play it would seem the best move is 2. .. e6. Which transposes into my line. I wouldn't mind exploring this a little because I wonder if the best moves transpose into the theoretical best line.. I'll not go there now as I don't think it's necessary at this time.

So let's continue with your "inferior line" considering we have already proven that 2. .. d4 is inferior.

The best move here with a blazing 5500 games is 3. Nce2. Second with 410 games is Nd5. Aparently Nd5 sucks, but I think that is obvious why. Surprisingly in chessbase third is 3. Nb1.

3. Nce2 has a 52.5% and 3. Nb1 has a 41%. Which is consistent with knowing 3. Nce2 is the best reply.

3. e5 has 3800+ games, which you claim is an advantage to black.. But for some reason has a 52.6% advantage to white. What do we believe?? You or chessbase?

Note though: I am not trying to be confrontational. I am exploring the claims. Yours is the biggest attempt to claim Nc3 is inferior, so I sectioned you out. My point is, why is Nc3 inferior when every resource says it's at least equal?

I think these are fair and logical questions.

WOW
superb research@MeWantCookieMobile
I would really recommend you to go in mun.
you make me believe that nc3 is not inferioir.

The percentages do not prove anything. If a weaker player plays 1 Nc3 to surprise a stronger player and the stronger player wins, then that does not say anything about the opening.

On 1 Nc3 d5 2 e4 d4 3 Nce2, compare it to
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 O-O 5 Be2 e5 6 O-O Nc6 7 d4 Ne7

@Arin75

Thanks,

What is "mun"?

I usually assess positions with my training first. And then I research my claims. I get "more interested" in researching when someone opposes my claims. In chess I tend to have a good debate resolution record. Also I love it when people like to explore all phases of chess. I wish there was more discussions like this.