I've seen variations recommended for White that go 1.Nc3 c5 2.Nf3 followed by 3.d4 and a king-side fianchetto holding back on e4.  I think maybe perhaps it was in Dunnington's book, "Winning with Unorthodox Openings".  Actually, right now I'm not even sure I've got the title right.  Is it possible that against certain Black second and third moves this system might give White an edge?

Well, MNb, simply by replying 3. e4 to 2...Nf6 (which will lead you into Nimzo-Sicilian territory).
It' s not so much the extra options you get as white, it's the options you cut out for Black...
Of course if you happen to play a defense that is playable against both 1. e4 and 1. Nc3 then it makes no difference to you. To White it still does as there is plenty of theory he does not have to work through.

To get back to our thread : as a White player you basically have two options : either you are an open-games-man or a closed-games-man. (In fact you have no options because only one will suit you) Usual way to go about it : you play 1. e4 or 1.d4. And from there on it is Black who determines the course of events, and as a White player there is only one thing to do : prepare as good as you can against these defenses.

If you are an open-games man you're out of luck : your statistical chances are slimmer, mainly due to the succes of the sicilian. And of course it takes lots of work to preserve your tiny white advantage in the Ruy labyrinth. Every reduction in these fields constitutes a big gain (even if this is not perceptible to Black). No doubt there is a parallel to this in the closed games, but it is not as severe (the Nimzo still gives White some 53%).

So, one needn't be surprised at the popularity of all those openings that constitute some kind of 'inroad' to those main types of position, I mean 1. c4, 1. Nf3 and such for the closed games (basically a delayed 1.d4) and the Veresov, London and such (basically a delayed 1. e4). Within the latter I prefer 1. Nc3,   
b e c a u s e  it stays closer to the 'main road'.

Let us keep it simple. All the lines Strptzr has proposed after 1.Nc3 c5 and after 1.Nc3 Nf6 2.e4 e5 can be reached by 1.e4. So 1.Nc3 simply does not make sense.
The only merits 1.Nc3 has, from White's point of view, are
a)1.Nc3 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e4 avoiding the Svesjnikov
b)1.Nc3 Nf6 2.d4 d5 entering the Veresov instead of the Open Games.

ad a) White can achieve the same by playing some Anti-Sicilian: 2.b3, 2.c3, 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 or even 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3. And of course 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3.
ad b) Is this really a good trade?

Of course Uberdeker is right, Black has extra options. I would like to add a personal preference: 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nxe4 Nd7 4.Bc4 Ngf6 not fearing 5.Bxf7+.

So the only possible conclusion is, that 1.Nc3 is inferior to 1.e4.
If White wants to play the Gunsberg Variation, then 1.e4 is the logical move to begin with. After 1.Nc3 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 I am curious to learn, how White avoids Strptzrs' Najdorf beast.

Quote:


Why not? They can transpose into each other pretty easy (and/or into the french as usual). (The french really has a knack of showing up in all 'boring' defences! Petroff, Colle, Veresov etc) 

So why should 2...e6 vs the Tromp be so much more fun for white??



PS, I just saw Jonny's Veresov game from the Danish league finals recently. White's position after 13 moves must be one of the ugliest I've seen ever at least regarding white's pawn structure - or lack thereof - yet he wins somehow... 

http://www.schackforum.se/Partier/skakeliganden89.html

Well what has gotten cut out is a lot of Sicilian lines which give White less than his birthright if he goes 1. e4 (for the Sicilian line I play myself  NIC gives White a whopping 50 % today !) and the running meter of theory on double king's pawn openings for black. Sorry, I do not deplore this terrible loss, which actually gives me statistically better chances and a leighter workload. Also lost are the chance to play the Tarrasch vs the French and  the Panov against the Caro. Personally I don't care for that, but I can understand that this may not be to everybody's liking...

And as I am no dragon I really do not mind facing the Saint-George (those a6/e6 systems). No small amount of fun is derived from the fact that people feel inclined to try such things against 1.Nc3, whereas they would be following their 20 moves of main line theory if you had opened 1. e4...

Well, at least this topic has stirred up some debate.

Another point of me looking at the Veresov is that I do play the Fantasy Caro-Kann (3.f3) and have been looking at some sort of early f3 system against the French (which this actually provides). I'm not really looking for something overtly aggressive (if I was, I would have no reason to change from my current repertoire of utter crud!), but a solid, non-theoretical system with attacking chances. From what I can see, this 4.Qd3 system, intending queenside castling and a kingside pawn storm, is almost the perfect choice in that respect, and in the case of an early ...c6 or ...e6 I would be on familiar territory. 

The 1.Nc3 move order doesn't seem to have any benefit to me in most openings, especially in the attempt to reach lines of the Veresov, since it strikes me that a lot more people will play 1...c5 against 1.e4 knowing that white will almost be forced towards the sicilian, than against 1.d4 where black has to be prepared for a Benoni and a Sicilian (incidentally, I used the knowledge that my opponent played both the BDG and the Morra to play 1.d4 c5 and transpose into the latter on Sunday). I have no doubt that the Benoni is good for white, but I have no time to learn so much theory (especially since most of the best lines are quite theoretically heavy (e.g. Taimanov's 8.Bb5+ line), and also ground myself in a whole new sort of position - yes, I understand some of the ideas such as black's ...c4 sacs and white's thematic e5 advance, etc, but to understand the positions well enough to play this correctly as white would take quite a bit of study, something I want to avoid at the moment!

Alas, 1.d4 c5 2.Nc3 does not look at all promising from what I can see here, so I think sticking to the original intention of 2.dxc5 is probably best for now, or perhaps even 2.Nf3 with Lev's 3.b4 in mind... perhaps not 

The point is that I'm not looking to have a 1.e4 or 1.d4 repertoire with certain bits cut out (which is what 1.Nc3 or 1.Nf3 seem to indicate to me). I'm looking to have a repertoire based on the Veresov, which is totally separate to the 1.d4 and 1.e4 complex proper (as I see it anyway). The only lines that black can transpose into after 1.d4, 2.Nc3, 3.Bg5, 4.Qd3/4.f3 are lines I already play, or lines I'd be happy to play (such as 3.e4 vs the Pirc, or the Caro-Kann/French lines).

Thanks to everyone for their feedback.

Well, 1.Nc3 is not the salvation - but the point is rather that black tends to think for himself in the beginning. For example, I've had a few games with 1.e4 d6/g6 2.Nc3 as white, and usually play gets pretty original early on...

Besides, what is theoretically lame, may be practically quite good. Before he took up the Veresov, Hector played some games in the french with 3/4.Qd3 dxe4 5.Qxe4 Nf6 6.Qh4 and scored quite well iirc. 

And generally, this seems true for most QP openings too, Trompowski, Torre, London, Veresov even the Colle scores quite well in practice, at least for those who specialize in them. Not because it gives white an advantage but simply because you always get chances in a game between humans of approximately the same strength, and by choosing a safe set-up, you minimize the risk that black will find his chances first...

And by avoidng c2-c4 and d4-d5 as white, you avoid most of black's special weapons, i.e. everything from Benko/Volga gambit to the Czech Benoni - which may be getting popular again btw, as I recently saw an article by Marin recommending it...