1.Nc3 and Why Isn't it Played more?

The chess.com opening calls this (1.Nc3) the "van Geet", while I have a book (by Sam Collins) that calls it the "Dunst". But for simplicity I'll call it the VG.

The Nimzowitch Defense is actually not bad, and black can have equality after 2.d4, and can transpose after 2.Nf3.

The VG is simply the same as the Nimzowitch, except a tempo up! And if you have an extra tempo, that's usually good, right?

Similar to the Bird's opening as a "faster Dutch", why isn't 1.Nc3 played more often, if it's just an "accelerated Nimzowitch"?

The Van Geet is specifically 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 d4, not the whole Nc3 complex.

It is not played much because of d5.  With 1.e4, you are covering d5.  You either eliminate it with exd5 in the case of the Scandinavian, prevent it, like in the Sicilian, or block it with d4 yourself like in the French or Caro.

1.Nc3 does none of this, and that is not good for the same reason that you do not play Nc6 or Nc3 in Queen Pawn openings.  You typically want your c-pawn advanced first, or sometimes it uses that square for Defense (especially Black).

The same is not said about the f-pawn in King Pawn Openings, and hence why Nf3 is played far more often on the first move than Nc3.

@thrillerfan thanks, but how playable do you think it is, with white being an entire tempo up? (compared to Nimzo)

I feel that it won't make too much of a difference, but white may be able to get an interesting f4 push to sharpen the game somehow.

It's as good as the nimzo as transposing, which is really good. imo a great drawing tool, similar to King's Indian attack.

How "playable" it is will depend on the ability of the players.  While i dont know why, but it isnt seen at the top level of play.  But for the average player?  Why not.

White does not gain any tempi when he is moving his Knight around the board.  And 4.f4 has already been shown to be worse for White than 4.Ng3, and Black is at least equal after 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 d4! 3.Nce2 e5! 4.Ng3 Be6!, stopping Bc4.

Long story short.  1.Nc3.  Playable?  Yes.  However, clearly inferior to the big 4 (c4, d4, e4, or Nf3)

[comment edited]

not really, because the point is to take the knight. Or, instead of 6.Nf3, white could play 6.c3

Post 10 - 4...Nc6 is crap!  4...Be6!!

And if White ever harasses e5, Black plays ...f6.

@lucasCharrier that is not relevant to this thread, sorry. Please do not do this again.

In his book "Understanding the chess openings", Sam Collins writes (about the 1.Nc3) 

 "2.d4 is completely playable, but offers white nothing, as we saw in the Veresov section". I haven't really looked at it, though. Obviously much better than 2.e4, but *probably* less provoking.

d4/Nc3 is to play Jobava attack which is probably better than Veresov.

there is a fun line that begins this way for white.

is just plain unclear. 

white doesnt have to play to commit to d4 just yet , he can play a bc4 d3 qe2 nf3 sort of formation with or without ng3, or my preference nd7 g3!? where white keeps the option between d3 and d4 open.

1.nc3 is completely fine, there is  book "Knight on the left" on it which is pretty much the nc3 bible.  The move has the benefit that it can really do everything, you can transpose back to pretty normal mainstream openings  or funkier but relatively well known lines or you can go off the beaten path, or a combination of both. 

Just because a book is written on it does not make it good.  White gets no more than equality and I seem to recall the author even saying that 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.Nce2 e5 4.Ng3 Be6 being very annoying for White and Black has already equalized.

Many books are merely written for marketing purposes.  You think The Art of Sacrifice In Chess (Spielman), Winning Chess Tactics (Seiriwan), and Standard Chess Openings (Schiller) are of the same quality of writing?  Not saying suited for the same level player.  Saying same quality of writing?  They are not that far apart in price!  The former is a classic, the latter is brown stuff that comes out of your rear end, and the middle one is somewhere in between.

@thrillerfan you forgot the golden god book... "Logical Chess, move by move" - Irving Chernev

lmao after e4 play d4

I didn't forget.  I simply chose 3 books at random that are roughly the same price that have vastly different reviews and levels of quality.  There is literally ZERO ATTEMPT to name all classics, or even the best book.  So saying I forgot a book just shows that the whole point behind the post literally sailed right over your head!