Quote:


Theoretically the critical line must be 1.e4 d5 2.Nc3 d4 3.Nce2 e5. White allows Black to play the most natural moves on the board, gaining space with no loss of time. I'd be very surprised indeed if anyone could prove that White has any path to advantage here. The knight has been pushed to a bad square, blocking the bishop; now White either loses further time with Ng3 to free the bishop, or fianchettoes kingside with a Kings Indian/Reversed Modern type of position against which Black has plenty of resources. The only lines of any theoretical promise therefore are ones in which White tries to smash the black centre with an early f4 or c3 (or both). But I still don't see why Black should be worse - what sins has he committed?

OK, this is very general, and I am sure that there is plenty of "underground" analysis by Van Geet fans out there to try to justify White's position, but let's be brutally frank - this is not the way to a white advantage against the Centre Counter. The most that can be claimed is that it can lead to playable and perhaps unusual positions.

The existence of at least one other satisfactory line for Black ( 1.e4 d5 2.Nc3 dxe4 3.Nxe4 Qd5) makes me think: what the hell - life is short - why waste time doing deep research on such a line?  Play 2 exd5 and learn how to handle main line positions. 

And if you want to play this line just to "avoid theory", remember Semprun's words of wisdom in another posting:

"If you avoid main lines to study less, your results improve...up to a level. Then further improvement is difficult precisely because the hard work was avoided in the first place."

The Dutch expert himself, DD van Geet, does not trust this line for White.

2....d4 is the Main Line in the Van Geet, and there should be a reason for that. (Now somebody will stand up and say it is not good because it is what White is hoping for... ) Unsound it is not, in any case.

Please check flank openings: 1.Nc3 d5 3.e4 is a main line of the Van Geet Opening.

What is the consensus on the best approach for black to "declined" scandinvian 1.e4 d5 2.Nc3!?

Here is my brief "analysis" and I am looking for more suggestions and ideas from the Scandinavian experts.

Obviously 2.... de 3. N:e4 Bf5 (or Nd7) should not be that bad for black, who gets Caro-Kann like position, having saved on move c6. 

More interesting is the 2... d4!? move gaining space advantage and chasing away the knight c3.

It seems the best attempt for white is to develop d3, Nf3, g3, Bg2 similar to kings indian or Pirc, which is does not look too dangerous to black after Nc6, Qd7 and 0-0-0 and king-side initiative with g5, h5, or maybe even play on the queenside with Kb8, Rc8 and c7-c5-c4....

After 3. Ne2 e5. 4. Nf3 f6!? 5. Ng3 Be6 black seems also to have a nice position since white has no active square to develop the f1 bishop. Be2 just looks very passive and 6. Bb5+ c6 7. Ba4 Na6!? leads to black's initiative on queenside after 8. 0-0 Nc5 9.Bb3 N:b3 10. ab d3!?  where black seems to have an advantage.

However, white might try to play a suspicious looking move 4. f4!? (after 1. e4 d5 2. Nc3 d4 3. Ne2 e5) to complicate things in the center. I am not sure what's the best way to respond to this move, maybe with 4 ... d3!? 5. cd Nc6 sacrificing a pawn trying to freeze white's kingside?

I would like to hear critiques and suggestions from people who play this variation for white or black. What lines do you prefer to play against Nc3 as black? What type of positions are you aiming for playing Nc3 for white?