nyoke wrote on 09/04/09 at 12:33:50:

This I don't get. 1.Nc3 gives Black some extra options while White avoids nothing. The only option White gains is playing against a Sicilian structure without having to play the optimal e2-e4. Tell me what you play against 1.e4 and I will tell you what to play against 1.Nc3.

The initial question is too complicated for me.

You could optimise your repertoire by opening 1.Nc3. 
This will normally give you more of the French/Caro replies you enjoy, and is in fact a Scandinavian (1.Nc3, d5 2. e4 = 1.e4, d5 2. Nc3).

I say : you could because I don't think honing your repertoire is the thing.

Apologies for the length of post, but this is quite a critical issue for me and I'm hoping to get some help

For the last ten years, I have played to a very similar repertoire across the board. Classical openings, originally Caro-Kann/Slav/QGA and Ruy Lopez Exchange, then I realised I needed openings where I got equal space, as I was getting smashed as Black without the required understanding. I thence adopted the Petroff, wherein I got so many people playing 3. Nc3, and still do, that I am only beginning now to get the grips of the main line (though I do struggle through 3. d4, it seems rather dry to me), but which has garnered many wins. After a chequered time of the QGA, I switched to the relatively dynamic Chebanenko Slav, which has online at least, provided me a good score, good positions, and importantly, good play in all variations.

The d4 side isn't a problem therefore any more. What is the problem is my e4 both sides, specifically in rapid congresses, though the question applies across the board as food for thought.

When I play 1. e4, I typically garner a Spanish Exchange position. I have had a good amount of wins, but most of these have been through opposition's relatively advanced technical incompetence. They haven't lost through simple tactics, they've lost in endings where they have been lazy, or by allowing such good endings to occur. I know that when I am fully challenged in this variation, I struggle to be original without being incorrect, and while against the proper players I have gotten great positions and games, I know that one level above it will no longer fly. I have some information on 5. d3 from Andrew Martin's DVD, but this isn't really in keeping with my correct openings style, so I'd rather learn the full thing slowly and adopt it everywhere. The only other opening I have any sort of resistance put up with, asides the Scandinavian, is the Sicilian, a multi-headed bastard whose Hydratic tendencies I am working on as we speak :lol: I have simple understandable variations against some of these bits so no worries. The issue here, is that as Black, Petroffs with 3. Nc3 cannot be relied upon to give dynamic chances for a win, it tends to go to semisimplified positions with endgames to come, and endgames are NOT my forte consistently. The Main Line also suffers from being a bit, technical, and while I don't have a problem with that in itself, in my last rapid congress, I attained two Petroffs, one Lasker *dies inside*, one, a tabia so familiar I bashed my first twenty moves out just like that, but still had practical problems with.

I know that Grandmasters recently have gotten excellent results using 3. Bc4, either in the Two Knights, or Italian games to a lesser extent, but I need advice on constructing a cogent and more combative repertoire for rapid congresses. I could adopt this, but some of this can be extremely tactically memorized, and that is something that might take longer than the three weeks I have. (Note that I play lightning tournaments once a year and the rep. I have suits me fine there, as it is better to have deeper knowledge and avoid egregious errors.)

Some criteria I wish to lay down, feel free to challenge me here because I may be being short-sighted

1. I play best in positions where I have equal or greater space. Against things like the French, Pirc, Caro-Kann, I do excellently. If I know the opening well, I can play things like the French/Caro, but don't want anything like that where one could exchange and eat dry wall. Otherwise I fear at G30, I wouldn't be as precise as I want to get best positions.

2. I have a primarily positionally aggressive style. If someone messes up in the opening, I play the best continuation regardless of the position type that arises, but if I have an equal or nursable advantage position, I like to avoid all out tactics. Something which is all tactics before smoke clears will not be a good idea, because my form fluctuates quite badly even though I am rated 1700/128ECF. A significant number of my classical games end within 25 moves or so, because I have such accurate knowledge of the opening repertoire mistakes my opponents typically make, or because I can play so precisely in openings that I end up with a huge winning advantage when my opponents make 2 or 3 poor (though not immediately losing) moves.

3. The Scandinavian is something I am actively considering. It is a total f***ing bugbear to me at the moment, simply because I have no problem playing c4 and being aggressive, but the best continuation doesn't really fit my style in some ways, because the positions resemble the French/Caro so much that one is tempted to play similarly against it, but autotemplating openings like this always leads to disaster, and I haven't enough experience against the Scandi to know enough book or understanding to smash it against inferior play yet. (Smashing someone who plays an opening very imprecisely is a target for every game I have.)

4. I have a book on things to play against 1. d4, so I have no problems there, however, if someone wants to suggest viable openings that would work at G30 for Black, that involve equal space and don't require heavily accurate play for practical chances, go right ahead