Danish Dynamite doesn't give much guidance on the deviation 1 e4 e5 2 d4 Nc6, merely saying "White can transpose to the Scotch or play 3 dxe5 or 3 d5."

There's quite good coverage of 3 dxe5 in Stefan Bucker's Englund Gambit book (as the position also arises from 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 e4) in which he concludes that Black has a playable game but White has the edge after 3...Nxe5 4 Nf3 or 4 f4.   

Looking over the lines with Fritz I prefer the White position more after 4 f4 than 4 Nf3 as White takes more space in the centre, but that may be a matter of taste.  Anyways I'm with Bucker on this one, I think White has some advantage in this line of the Nimzo, but nothing too serious.

Good to get the ball rolling Ivan -- thanks.

My main interest is in 4 Nf3 Bb4 5 c3 Nf3 (I don't quite trust Kevitz's ingenious 5 ...Bd6 -- maybe 6 Na3!?) 6 Qf3 Bc5. Then the main tries/lines seen in practice might be:

I  7 Be3(?!) Be3 8 Qe3 Nf6 9 Nd2 0-0 10 Bd3 Re8 11 0-0 d5

II  7 Bc4 Qf6 (8 Bf4 d6; 8 Be3 Qf3; 8 Qg3 Ne7)

III  7 Bd3 d6 8 Nd2 Ne7 9 b4 Bb6 10 Nc4 0-0 11 0-0 Be6

IV  7 b4 Bb6 ([i]or[/i] 7 ...Be7 8 Bc4 Bf6) 8 Nd2 Ne7 9 a4 ([i]or[/i] 9 Nc4 0-0 10 c4? d5) a6 ([i]or[/i] 10 ...c6!?)


All responses eagerly awaited!

I've used quotes above because Nimzowitsch never played this. Its themes and texture are quite different from those of the 2 ...d5 lines. It's sometimes called the Kevitz-Mikenas Defence, and some sort of renaming is, if you ask me, long overdue.

Of course, White can transpose play into the Scotch complex with 3 Nf3, but the critical attempts to call the defence into question begin with 3 dxe5 and 3 d5. In another thread, TopNotch claims that this defence is "unsustainable rubbish" and that its adherents ought to give it up and play something more mainstream. So I'm issuing him with a challenge -- where is this serious advantage for White, that in this line (as opposed to the 2 Nf3 line) Tony Miles's opponents apparently could not find?