1.Nc3 Opening

Yep, I was under the impression that the Dunst is the name for 1.Nc3 as a whole, while the VGA (Van Geet Attack) refers specifically to 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.Nce2 with 4.Ng3 next.

the 5...a6 response is very rarely seen but after nf3 nc6, d3, white is fine so long as he mantains his plans flexible and not try to force a schema of play . Sometimes, he goes for a3-b4, other times, he goes for early cxd4 trying to prepare f4, other times, after h5, he plays h4, and be2. position is equal.

one reason black is not better is that the a6 tempi means nf3 doesnt allow an efficient way to land c5 and must instead settle for nc6 but this means there is always a possible threat of cxd4 leaving a d-pawn isolani which white wants. OTherwise, dxc3 by black allows white to get a good center.

but 4.ne6 c3 5.a6 is a worthy try to test if white really knows what they doing, i would wager 90% of 1.nc3 players wont know what to do.

actually white needs to avoid the temptation of c3, a6 cxd4 ?!(hoping for exd4 d3 with f4 coming) Qxd4! nf3 qb6 nxe5?! bc5 where white's clumsy pieces means he is a slightly worse despite being a pawn up

isnt this a closed scandi?

i refuse to partake in such silly name lol, its the van geet attack or dusnt or knight on the left or w.e other name that respects 1.nc3 for its indendent significance. The only reason that name ever got popularity is one of the top chess sites (either this one and/or lichess) decided to catalogue it that way

its just like this line 1.e4 nc6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 qxd5, any sane person would catalogue it as the exchange variation of the classical nimzowitsch defense but some people dismissively call it a sideline of the scandinavian (which it tecnically also is, after 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 qxd5 3.d4!? nc6)

choosing to name these lines after a sideline of the more played variation over the mainline of an unorthodox opening is just disrespectful

Contrary to what others have said, 1.Nc3, just like 1.e4, 1.d4, and 1.Nf3, have no name. And don't go spewing the Reti. The Reti requires ...d5 by Black and c4 by White. 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 is a Reti. 1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.b3 (or 3.g3) is a Reti, not an English. 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 c5 3.Bf2 Nf6 4.d3 Nc6 5.O-O e6 6.Nbd2 Be7 7.Re1 O-O 8.e4, for instance, is NOT a Reti. It is a King's Indian Attack.

So now, with 1.Nc3, some will argue it is the Dunst, but it surely is not the Van Geet. The Van Geet is specifically 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 or 1.e4 d5 2.Nc3 d4.

Like 1.Nf3, 1.Nc3 is a highly transpositional move.

1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 is the Van geet

1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 is a side variant of the Scandinavian, and 3...Qd5 4.Nc3 would transpose back to the main line.

1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 c6 is a Caro-Kann, main responses being 3.d4, 3.Nf3 (two knights) and 3.Qf3.

1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 e6 is a French.

1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 Nf6 is an Alekhine

1.Nc3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.Bg5 is a Veresov

1.Nc3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.Bf4 is the Jobava

1.Nc3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.e4 is a line of the Blackmar Diemer Gambit.

So just 1.Nc3, by itself, is not an opening, just like 1.Nf3, 1.c4, 1.d4, and 1.e4 aren't. They are more likely to lead to certain openings than others, but again, 1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 e6 3.Bg2 d5 4.Nf3 is a Reti while 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.O-O O-O 5.c4 c5 is a symmetrical English, despite this starting 1.Nf3 and the other 1.c4.

And the van geet is just the closed Scandi

Good

"So now, with 1.Nc3, some will argue it is the Dunst, but it surely is not the Van Geet. The Van Geet is specifically 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 or 1.e4 d5 2.Nc3 d4."

Where is that written? Is there a source for this? According to Wikipedia, the terms van Geet, Dunst, etc. are synonyms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunst_Opening

After 1. Nc3 the opening is of course not yet finalized. The ECO Code A00 implies that there will be no transpositions into another opening (Vienna Game, Scandinavian, etc.)