The 'Dunst' Opening has barely an independent significance, transposing usually into more well-known lines.

But then it would have been much better to play 2...a6, because ...a5 doesn't kick the knight. But why would you play that anyway? The knight is on b5, yes, but is there any danger? No. It may look to some a little dangerous, but its actually not. A one man's army cannot accomplish anything, a one-knight army neither. So best is just don't waste any trempo and continue developing. I prefer to take a centre hold with 2... d4 or 2... e4, depending on your preferances. Both are good here.

I agree with answer_is_here. Hitting the b5-knight by ...a6 can wait, and ought to wait, upon Black's rapid mobilization.

It would still be much better to play either 3 ...e5 or 3 ...d5 to get a hold in the centre. It is unclear what white will play, e4 or d4, so the black bishop might end up looking at his own pawn. Though Bh6 is still optional later.

This move also doesn't do anything at all. A wasted move, really.

White could play 5 h4, which I would have played. If black exchanges pieces then white has a nice half-open h-file. Its dangerous to castle short.

This weakens the kingside a bit for black, but there is no danger yet. Black won't have much to show for his lost knight.

Not only is Black ahead a piece for a pawn, but is much further along with development as well. The displacement of the Black King is hardly disruptive at all, well enough placed to 'castle longhand' (...Rf8; ...Kg8; and if needed, ...Kh8).

This is simply shifting wood, and not playing chess at all.

This is indeed a good move if white plays 8d4 and finally gets something in the centre.

Not a bad move, prevents queenside expansion.

Another bad move. The white player only uses 1 piece at the same time. He just played with only his 2 knights, which didn't even work together, and now wants to play with only his rook.

This weakens the b4 square for nothing.