Response against 1.Nf3

Hi all,

I have been studying lots of openings lately and I need help against 1.Nf3. It's a really general question so I will give some background. I play primarily Nimzo(and against 3.Nf3 3.d5) against d4 and against c4 I usually play e6 going into a QGD(if g3 Nf6 Bg2 d5 Nf3 I play dxc4). And I want to adapt my normal QGD setup against Nf3 but I have an issue- if white plays this move order of Nf3 d5 g3 Nf6 Bg2 e6 0-0 Be7 c4 0-0 d4 we are in a mainline catalan. And yes, the mainline catalan is fine for black, but it's really not my style of position after dxc4 or c6 and I believe much more in white's chances. I usually like to play d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 d5 Nf3 dxc4(followed by a6, Nc6, Bd7, b5). 

So I'm in need of some sort of setup/line against 1.Nf3

Thanks in advance,

All questions and advice is welcome.

There are many good replies to 1. Nf3. If U wanna avoid Queen's Pawn games, U can play 1...c5 or statistically excellent 1...g6.

Nf6

As someone who plays 1. Nf3 frequently, I have had the biggest issue with the symmetrical 1...Nf6 response. It is very hard to get any advantage out of this line, as black can play for a lot of symmetry in the position, for example 2. c4 c5 3. e3 e6.

Youre struggling at move 1?

Other than playing something special against 1.Nf3 you could try this stuff:

1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Bg2 dc

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 b5

 You might need to think about what you want to do against Reti's old setup with 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 e6 (2...dc) 3.b3 as well.

Thanks for the response. Unfortunately I do not play sicilian and don't have any plans of learning it just because of 1.Nf3. g6 may transpose to a King's Indian which I am not too fond of. I also wouldn't look at statistics very much on move one.

Thanks for the response. However, I'm looking more for a setup rather than just one move. 

I agree. Symmetrical lines have been very good and popular at top level. I haven't really ever played symmetrical and it probably requires some study, but I will give it a try. I am kind of worried about some of the early d4 lines(such as Nf3 Nf6 c4 c5 d4, which is fine for black and it's kind of a benoni, but I've seen some lines where it transposes to maroczy bind which I find good for white). At the same time the symmetrical is more of an equalizing opening, so I may not want to play it against lower rated players.

Try 1. ... e5.

Thanks for the response! The dutch is very interesting and I think it is perfectly sound. I don't really want to switch up my d4 repitoire just for 1.Nf3, but I will keep this in mind. I can also consider 1.Nf3 e6 in that case and if d4 maybe d5(or Nf6) and transpose into a QGD, just for more flexibility.

One last question. How should black play after 6.b3(instead of c4)?

Thanks, I was planning on keeping my black repitoire against d4 and just use it against Nf3.

The first line you mentioned I am already playing(with dxc4). My main issue is with the move order where they delay c4 until after I commit Be7.

The second line is very interesting. I have never seen it before or looked at it. I will research it further and see how good it is.

To be honest most of the reti lines don't scare me too much. It's perfectly fine for white but I haven't really had any trouble on the black side of it.

Thanks for the response!

I like playing the fianchetto KID as white but I'm not a sicilian player. I guess in that case I can play 1.g6 or Nf6

hi

1.Nf3 is too flexible. If you think you want one system against it, White goes another direction entirely. You could also play something non-committal, like 1...e6

Or play 1...d5 and if g3 Bg4

White can generally delay playing d4 or c4 depending on what he wants to do.

When they delay d4 it's usually to either avoid ...Bb4+ systems or to only play the move b3 after Black has castled to avoid ...Be7-f6 ideas. I'm not really sure why they delay c4 other than maybe to avoid some early ...dxc4 stuff. At any rate both move orders seem to avoid the position you want to get into so you may have to find something to counter these ideas like that early 4...b5 move that Black wouldn't be able to play in a typical position.

@tennistree2 : That's the interest of playing 1.Nf3, as we say in French "it puts a finger where it hurts" in Black's repertoire. That is why it is wise to work on transpositions in your repertoire.

@Yigor: Statistics are an obsession for you . Black's first move here does not define the value of the opening he will play: at this stage both opponents' moves towards the center can lead to a bunch of different openings, so they can end up playing ANYTHING, changing completely the statistical win/loss assessment should it matter.

So, far from solving one's opening issues, whoever plays 1.Nf3 g6 should be ready to play the King's Indian defense, the modern, or the Pirc, Indian lines against the English, or any opening with g3, etc...

PS: Playing chess is not about rolling dice, statistics are often barely relevant even when you select players of similar levels in your database: it does not underline an objective disadvantage on the board, it does not underline how difficult the line you choose is to play regarding intricacies your opponent and yourself may have to solve (though it may suggest it), it has no link with you being comfortable or not with the usual plans and patterns of the opening, its typical middlegames and endgames. In a nutshell: it has little to do with what is likely to make you win or lose.

That's not my only obsession. I know that sometimes statistics should be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, it's the unique objective criterion of goodness or badness of such a generic opening [textbook analyses are subjective and engine evaluations depend on how the program is written]. Since OP asks I give this objective info on the subject.

No offense but that logic is silly, you consider a GM's assessment written in a book "subjective" but statistics of moves played by people thinking by themselves over the board as nothing less than 'the unique objective criterion of goodness or badness"? Do you see the problem here ^^"?

At move 1, you can code your chess engine the hell you want there is close to nothing here to calculate (or put differently, almost everything is possible...). Further in the game, it gives you a material assessment and underlines tactical shots or blunders. It does not deal with strategy or easiness to play a given position, that's what "subjective textbook analyses" are for. The analyses by masters and grandmasters are based on their -understanding- of the game according to general principles acknowledged by everyone.

Besides, if you pick an opening 7th move with 60% of win for White, it does not even mean that move 7 is bad for Black, most Black players may simply make mistakes 30 moves later which are not related to move 7. The use of statistics in the opening is quite dubious in my opinion. If I remember correctly, GM Nunn (in Secrets of pratical chess, I think) warned about the likely irrelevant use of statistics in chess.

Unless OP is made of silicon, statistics will not help him. Especially because he is not asking a patzer question such as "what is the best move after move 1?" but complains about a transposition issue in the QID.

Merovwig: That's not silly. The sample is really huge. The results of individual thinkings of 2 x 200000 masters converge to something objective. These are basics of the probability theory.