♡ 60 ( +1 | -1 ) Trouble with the four knight's as black.As really smart people can figure out, by reading the title of the topic, I have some trouble with the four knight's system as black. I like my opening repertoire at the moment, so I will always play 2. ... Nc6 as response to 2. Nf3. Then 3. Nc3 comes and I can't say I find anything that offers anything but a very drawish game.
My questions: a. Are there certain variations that can deviate into sharper lines? b. Are there any main lines after 3. Nc3 worth looking into (do they offer something more sharp)?
General thoughts, support and acknowledgements is welcome.
♡ 34 ( +1 | -1 ) Well, the 4 knights is notoriously boring, and I haven't played into it for a long time.
You could go with 3...Bb5, but it probably won't be much different. If you want sharp, 3...f5 is always nice. If white plays 4.Bb5, you've got a Schliemann Ruy Lopez. Otherwise, you get similar play anyway. playing 3...f5 is risky, but can be fun.
And if all else fails, hope for the Halloween Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5?!).
♡ 81 ( +1 | -1 ) Have you tried Runinstein's line?1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Nd4!? I confess my essay in this line turned into a drawish sort of game, but it need not have done. 5.Bc4 Bc5!? (Possibly not the best) 6.Nxe5 Qe7 7.Nf3 d5 8.Nxd5 Qxe4+ 9.Ne3 Bg4 10.Be2 Nxe2 11.Be2 0-0-0 12.0-0 Rhe8 13.Qb5 Bxe3 14.fxe3 Qxc2 15.Ne1 Qg6 ... w At this point one would fancy Black's chances. Material is level, Black's position is the more active, and, in a race for each other's King in this opposite castling situation, Black has a head start. In the game, White played 16.a4 to which I rather tamely responded 16...Qh5, the game petering out after a further 8 moves. More enterprising might have been 16...a3 17.Qc4 h5 followed by ...h4 and ...h3. Not a lot to go on, but you might like to check out Rubinstein's counterattacking line if you haven't already.