Why is Nc3 considered so much worse the Reti?

@tpr

Granted... But you can literally say the exact same thing about any opening.

Let's do the experiment:

"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."

Example 1.

The percentages do not prove anything. If a weaker player plays 1. e4 to surprise a stronger player and the stronger player wins, then that does not say anything about the opening.

Example 2.

The percentages do not prove anything. If a weaker player plays 1. d4 to surprise a stronger player and the stronger player wins, then that does not say anything about the opening.

Example 3.

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

Example 4.

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

Example 5.

Really.. How many examples do I need?? What you are doing is given a false positions like claiming "databases mean nothing" or "Ratings mean nothing" when in fact you are not really proving anything except that the opinion is strong and very bias. Nothing wrong with that I guess, but I think my position in this theoretically is stronger.

EDIT: Let's also add. Would your claim strengthen my position? I mean what happens if equal players play and 1. Nc3 wins? I think if you want to prove yourself right you have to show positions where equal players prove that no matter what happens you get into inferior positions in the opening based on the Nc3 move order.

Can you REALLY do that? I think this is harder than you think it is.

@MeWantCookieMobile
mun is mock united nations
where we represent countries with facts and so on

@MeWantCookieMobile

"1. When did I say "you" would play into a french?"
You didn't, but I still fail to see how you get a two knights french out of 1. Nc3 d5 2. e4. I would guess you want to play something like 1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 d4 3. Nce2 e6? 4. Nf3. Problem is, 3.. e6 has never been played on the lichess master database, ever, so it's hard to see how this is "a possible theoretical transposition" which is what you claimed. You'll have to show me the line you have in mind.

"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."
Actually, 2. e4 in 1. Nc3 d5 is also the top master move on the lichess master database as well. I've never met a 1500 master before, but feel free to show me an example.

"3. 3. Nb1 is not exactly an alternative to Ne2 and Ng3."
Isn't it? According to lichess database, 3. Nb1 is the second most popular move after 3. Nce2 (though masters almost always play the latter). So what is this "hypermodern theory" alternative to 3.Nce2?

"4. No.. Playing a "premature" Nc3 is not considered inferior."
You can deny it all you want, but at this stage that's just your opinion. Sorry.

"But let me ask you. Can you honestly tell me you can refute 1. b4 and 1. g4?"
I never once said I refuted 1. Nc3 either. Refuting an opening isn't what we're discussing here.

Just for your information, I'm not here to bash on 1.Nc3 or any other opening. I myself play 1.b3 every game. I know it's garbage but I still play it. But we should accept that certain moves (like 1.Nc3) are not as good as others (like 1.Nf3).

@blind_man_walking

I did a little research in the name of trying to give more to my point and recorded it. I can post it if you like, but I came to some new ideas that I can just post here with words in about 45 seconds. And this is, I realized that you are using the lichess database only.

This difference in game distribution can skew the results by quite a margin. And this is why I agree with @tpr . The fact that having so much problems with databases and lack of results can form wrong opinions. No.. If you think it changed my opinion it didn't. What I am saying is I believe part of your opinion is incorrect as a result of lichess having an inferior database. I came to some new realizations, like I don't think it's possible to debate with someone who is closed minded. Which is why I decided to not worry about this part of the subject anymore.

Also I realized that this part of the forum is more about argument with little results rather than debate for learning. Yes, some people have seemed to understand each other and form some respect, but for the most part there is no logical conclusion to some of these.

The conclusion I came up with in looking with the video was that I still can't really prove 1. Nc3 as all that inferior.. And I even choked on my pride and opened several engines when the video was on. I hate engines with a mad passion. so for me to open an engine to anyone to see is quite an achievement. For personal reasons is why I hate engines. Still even with those devil devices I could not for the life of me prove it was truly inferior.

One of the things I admitted though was that while I came to this conclusion from the beginning. I admitted in the recorded that I didn't want to disagree with you. I hate 1. Nc3. I would never play it. I might play a transposition from it, like the Jobava London or something. But I would never play 1. Nc3 unless I wanted to toy with my opponent. But I think I am the perfect person to assess the position. As much as I hate that move.. I can't claim it's all that inferior. As much as I would like to prove that it's terrible vs 1. Nf3, I can't. I can prove 1. b4 is inferior to 1. Nf3 but I also in turn can really prove 1. Nc3 is that much better than 1. b4. It was like a slide. Another revelation I had was how I was exactly correct.. In that there is a HUGE number between 1. Nf3 and 1. Nc3. So much so, in the chessbase database alone there is 700k games with 1. Nf3. And only 30k with 1. Nc3. That basically states what I said eariler which is it's just not popular.

Also.. Yes you didn't say refute.

Let me know if you want the video. I thought it would be 3 min but it turned into an hour analysis session. It started out trying to prove you wrong, but in turned into me just focusing on the move. Moving away from you and more delve into the truth of the move. And I rather enjoyed that more. (Some of it did retract statements) Maybe I will make attempts to analyse random moves more and post them.. Might be my strength.

@MeWantCookieMobile

"What I am saying is I believe part of your opinion is incorrect as a result of lichess having an inferior database."
So in chessbase, a line like "1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 d4 3. Nce2 e6? 4. Nf3" is popular? Masters regularly play 3..e6 in that position? Or if not, what line were you thinking of when you claimed there is "a possible theoretical transposition" into the two knights french? I don't get it. Please respond.

Or maybe chessbase says there is a different alternative to 3. Nce2 than 3. Nb1? If so, what is it? You still haven't told me.

"For personal reasons is why I hate engines. Still even with those devil devices I could not for the life of me prove it was truly inferior."
All recent engines I've seen (Leela, Stockfish, etc) agree quite clearly that 1. Nc3 isn't the best move, and that it is inferior to 1.Nf3. Were you using Rybka?

I'll watch this video if you link it, but in the end, I'm still more inclined to follow general consensus in the chess community that 1.Nc3 is not as good as 1.Nf3. Call me closed minded, I just prefer to follow the conclusions of the experts and engines. I hope you can prove me wrong.

@blind_man_walking

youtu.be/Rl1FNyU4jgE

Take a look. I started off a little defensive toward you, but turned into an analysis session pointed only at Nc3. I use stockfish 11 for the main stuff. And you should know I consider anything within the range of +0.6 to -0.6 as equal. I did show my mistakes in off the cuff analysis too. I didn't rerecord or anything. So it shows a glaring weakness. Like my dislexia, and my forgetting some positions temporarily. I don't believe I transposed those errors here ever, so you will see it in the vid. I show the experts playing 1. Nc3 as well. So I don't know what experts you are refering to. However, when you see people like GM Jobava, and GM Rapport playing in their field things like Nc3 at any point blocking their C pawn despite the consensus. I think that says something.

By the way.. I never said 1. Nc3 is the best move either. I said Nf3 isn't much better like the OP questioned. This indicates that I agree that 1.Nf3 is slightly better. But the difference in terms of humans playing is insignificant.