Van Geet Repertoire

I was trying to come up with a solid repertoire for white, that was not overly used or analyzed. So I thought up something based on the Van Geet opening (1. Nc3). Now, this is a hypermodern move, but that does not have to be the case after move one. My idea was that, after 1... d5 or 1... Nf6, I play 2. d4, transposing into the Veresov, a solid opening. After 1... e5 or 1... c5, I would play 2. e4 transposing into the Vienna game and Closed Sicilian respectively.

So, any thoughts on this? And are there any other first moves I would need to be able to respond to? Thanks.

You definitely need a prepared response for 1...e6 from black. After 2. d4 f5, you are in a Dutch. After 2. e4 d5 you are in a French, and you've already committed Nc3 (meaning no Tarrasch, etc.). I prefer the Two Knights variation, e.g.:

You would do well to have some ideas for the d6-g6-Nf6 systems by Black, but in my experience you have a little more elbow room in those cases. It would also be ideal if your choice was consistent with your Veresov Attack against 1...Nf6.

Your move order might pack a subtle advantage against some Benoni-esque systems because the c4 square is free for your other knight, instead of being occupied by a pawn:

On a personal note, I feel like you are missing out on the real fun of the Van Geet opening (the independent lines after 1. Nc3 d5 2. e4), but as long as you are happy then it's all good.

Thanks for the response, d0su. Today I came across the book A Ferocious Opening Repertoire by Cyrus Lakdawala, which is about the Veresov opening. I believe it covers the French defense, as well as other defenses like the Caro-Kann, Dutch, Modern/Pirc, and Philidor, so I think I will be good. Do you or anyone else know anything about the book? I know it was written seven or so years ago so I don't know how up to date it is. Also, does anyone know of any books I should look at/avoid on the Closed Sicilian or Vienna Game? Thanks, and thanks again d0su for the quick response.

If u want to play Veresov, what's the point with 1.Nc3 move order on 1.d4?

I think 1.d4 to play Veresov allows less possibilities for black.

But if u want to play1.Nc3 as a transpositionnal move, i don't see the problem with it.

On 1.Nc3 e5 2.Nf3 is interesting, to go with kind of "improved" scotch after 3...Nc6 4.d4 where Nc3 may be more useful than e4 for some reasons...

I actually briefly considered purchasing that book, to supplement my repertoire when I used to play the Trompowsky.

I would not worry too much about the publishing date. Even after reading a single book, we class-level players will almost undoubtedly know more about our opening of choice than 95% of our opponents. Unless they also happen to be following an opening book (i.e. correspondence chess), then basically no one is going to follow the book lines deep enough to worry about any cutting-edge novelties.

More important is that any opening books you choose to spend time with provide 1) coverage of each natural response by the other side for the first few moves, and 2) lots of explanation and summary, so you have a plan for the middlegame and know what to do with your pieces when your opponent deviates. This is how you grow as a chess player and avoid rote memorization.

I too would like to know of any book recommendations for the Vienna Game, specifically the Vienna Gambit stuff. If you find a good one let me know.

Meh.

If you wanted to play the Veresov, why wouldn't you just play 1 d4 and 2 Nc3 - ?

Vienna Game books....these appear to be the most recent books on the opening..

https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Vienna-Game-1-E4-2-Nc3/dp/6197188023/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518842135&sr=1-2&keywords=vienna+game+chess

https://www.amazon.com/Vienna-Game-Gary-Lane/dp/1857442717/ref=sr_1_1?

s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518842135&sr=1-1&keywords=vienna+game+chess

7 Best Vienna Games...

https://thechessworld.com/articles/openings/7-best-vienna/

 For a book on the Closed Sicilian, I recommend Richard Palliser's book....

https://www.amazon.com/Starting-Out-Closed-Sicilian-Everyman/dp/1857444140/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518843596&sr=1-2&keywords=closed+sicilian

for some other ideas you might want to check out...

Good Chess Openings Books for Beginners and Beyond...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/good-chess-openings-books-for-beginners-and-beyond

White also has some other ideas :

And on 4...Nf6, well let's see 2 games by Andreikin :

That's why there is no need to transpose into Vienna if 1.Nc3 is played as 1...e5 may be dubious, white playing like an improved scotch as I already said...

On 1.Nc3 c5, it is interesting to notice that white can play in the same spirit :

1.Nc3 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 playing a sicilian where white can try to prove that Nc3 is more useful than e4...

Of course there is nothing wrong with transposing into Vienna or Grand Prix attack for example, but u can give an independant path and avoid mainstream theory like this, where black can easily be outplayed in the opening.

Yeah, 1...Nf6 is meant to be the most accurate move order for an 1 e4 e5 player.

I've got both Vienna books mentioned by RussBell. The Lane book is more a broad introduction to the Vienna (similar to the 'Starting Out' series by Everyman, with little in-depth theory. There is also at least one glaring mistake:

The Modern Vienna Game is much better with regards to analysis, but only offers one repertoire line after 2...Nf6 (3.Bc4), completely neglecting, for example, 3.g3. I also don't believe that White has any advantage whatsoever in the 3...Nxe4 4.Qh5 Nd6 5.Qxe5+ line that they recommend (as IM Pfren stated on another thread, they conveniently overlook the best move order for Black). Finally, there are a few annoying errors that I have found; for example, in Chapter 5:

Overall, neither book is perfect, but The Modern Vienna Game will serve you very well if you do go for the 3.Bc4 line (although you'll have to find something else against 3...Nxe4 if you want to avoid a very dull, equal position). I'll finish with one of the craziest lines in the book:

Regarding your first example, I did some clicking around with the computer, and it looks like White is at least equal after 14 Rf1!. An engine's initial evaluations tend to be particularly unreliable in positions with a Knight trapped in the corner. I do agree that 9 Qd1! is a much simpler/better move, though.

In your second example (the 7...Nxd5 variation), 11 Qh5 Qf6! probably is indeed good for Black, but 11 h4! looks thematic and very dangerous.

Thanks for sharing the third example, 20 Nd3!! is a very nice move.

Thank you for the corrections, m_n0. It seems that White arrives quickly enough on the kingside to prevent ...b5 resources for Black in the first line. I also agree that 11.h4! seems quite good for White; for example, 11.h4 c6 12.Bxf7+! Rxf7 13.Nxf7 Kxf7 14.Qh5+ Kg8 (0.00) 15.Rh3! Qf8 16.Rg3 Kh7 17.Qg6+ Kh8 18.Rf3! and the engine changes its mind (+0.6).

What do you play after 1. Nc3 e5 2. e4 Nf6? Do you play f4 or something else?

I see you're eyeing the Closed Sicilian... it's a great opening but I feel compelled to mention the Two knights sicilian. You have the choice of transposing into random open sicilian mainlines or sidelines throughout, or a variety of obscure never-before-seen lines. On top of this black players aren't going to know how to handle any of it.

You have to tolerate 11% of players playing 2. d5 here, which is the best engine move. However, this position doesn't occur in any typical openings and it has a fine winrate for white, 55% vs 39% on lichess at 2200+. The deeper you look you'll see black usually screws up quickly anyway (like by playing 3... cxd4), and even if he doesn't you can get a jobava-like position or a dynamic position -

So that right there is the theoretical "problem" with the two knights sicilian and the reason people don't play it. To me that is no reason at all. Now, the rest of the lines for black are just a nightmare. I can't even scratch the surface honestly, but it's like a whole parallel rats nest of a sicilian that isn't known, until you want it to transpose into the known lines... it's all up to you really.

Here's a transposition to a random line in the four knights sicilian -

here's a variation of the lowenthal sicilian that an impulsive black player could easily find themselves in

assuming they didn't just fall for this: 

I'm just picking these at random, the entire variation is like this. 

The only downside is you really have to know your lines to actually capitalize on all the different transpositions and opportunities. And it's a huge amount of theory just like the actual sicilian. However, that's true in the typical sicilian as well, and I like a challenge... at least here your theory knowledge pays off because your opponent will not follow probably. But this is very in the spirit of the Van Geet and so inspiring to play, you're conquering a new frontier.

If you're careful in the Two Knights you can get away with just knowing the lowenthal, richter-rauzer, the accelerated dragon, and the nimzowitsch sicilian. And maybe the lasker-pelican but that's up to you. The rest of the sicilians (najdorf, dragon, kan, taimanov etc.) it looks to me you can manage to avoid.

I don't think you should play the Van Geet with just 1 specific response to each move in mind. You should really think of it as a system. Infact, it's kind of like a system-of-systems in that it interleaves a variety of 1. d4 and 1. e4 openings, and can choose between them.

For example... against 1... e5 the Napoleon attack is a unique Van Geet move. It's also favored by the engine, it's actually preferred by the engine over the scotch, and it has a very high winrate. If you're up against an opponent who plays e4/e5 you wouldn't want to pass this move up, nor would you want to transpose them into a Vienna which is a position they're going to know.

On the other hand... against 1... Nf6 clearly a great move is 2. e4 which takes black into a variation of the Alekhines. However, this variation can then either transpose into a Vienna, or move into an Alekhine-Scandinavian which can then in turn transpose into a French Steinitz -

22% of players play Nf6 here and they're not going to be Alekhine players so this is a great option you wouldn't want miss. However, you also don't want to miss the Napoleon attack.

Similarly, you can also transpose 1... Nc6 into a variation of the Nimzowitsch defense which can turn into a Vienna Max Lange as well.

So my point is the way to approach the Van Geet is not to play a specific line for each response, but rather to play many different moves, and to view it as a system opening that combines various Nc3 moves from both e4 and d4 repertoires you're familiar with as well as its own unique moves. You probably need to first work out a repertoire for 1. e4 and 1. d4 based on Nc3 and get comfortable with those various positions first.

A 1. e4 repertoire would consist of the following-

1... c6 - play either the caro-kann two knights or the main line here 
1... Nf6 - obviously you'll be playing the alekhine scandinavian with 2. Nc3 here 
1... d5 - play 2. Nc3 here the closed scandinavian 
1.... e5 - play the Vienna
1.... c5 - against the sicilian you should play either the smith mora (Van Geet can transpose into that), closed, or if you aspire to play the two knights you should learn the open lines in the classical sicillian / accelerated dragon / possibly the nimzowitsch sicilian and four knights sicilians 
1... e6 - obviously you play the paulsen french here 
1... d6 - play the Byrne variation of the Pirc

Play that for a while then switch to a chigorin repertoire based on 1. d4 where you play either the Jobava or the Veresov.

After that take a look at the Van Geet, you'll have a few different repertoires and you can jump between them now.

If you ever aspired to play OTB having a few different repertoires like this that have similar structures that connect is generally the way you want to approach things.