This post is the first in a series I plan on non-theoretical openings. Even rubbish like the Fred Defence (1. e4 f5?) has a name attached to it, but there are a couple which do not that I've found, and I'm interested in discussing them and perhaps conducting some analysis of them with the members of this forum.
The first is one I call the Four Queens Knights. Positionally, imagine a standard Four Knights after 3 moves, but with the pawns advanced being the d-pawns not the e-pawns. The position is otherwise identical. But how would you get there in practise? One way is through the Van Geet Opening, 1. Nc3. Another is a somewhat botched Reti or other out-of-book hypermodern play, and a third is through bizarre attempts to maintain the symmetry by Black) Examples: 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nc6 and 1. Nc3 d5 2. d4 Nc6 (A Queen's Petroff Defence, commonly used to circumvent the Four Knights and vice-versa, and subject to a later entry in the OOS) 3. Nf3 Nf6
Now consider the position. Unlike in standard Four Knights (FK) positions, the pawns are defended by the Queens and the Knights, rather than just the Knights. This makes the Scotch Variation of the FK, 4. d4, a gambit as the equivalent move would have to be 4.e4, which doesn't have the Queen behind it. Another important factor to consider is that unlike conventional closed position openings, White has cut off the c-pawn (considered to be a key flaw of the Van Geet opening)
As Black I've found myself inadvertently coming across this position whilst trying to get my opponent out of book when he plays 1.d4. A way this could arise is 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nc3 Nc6. Does anyone have any thoughts on whether this is good or bad for either White or Black? What are the best lines for either side? I'm going to do some analysis when I get the chance and come back to this one...