I did not like tiviakovs cd's to much .. it is like move move move black is equal but no reasons of explanations. Sometimes i dont understand why
I am curious if anybody has some inside information on the cd from bogolan about the Nimzo I do like his catalan cd
@Irontiger, that's funny because I find the Qc2 and e3 lines much easier to play than the f3/a3 lines!
Hum...
Either you are much more experienced than I am with it, or much less.
Guess what I'm thinking ?
Haha I wonder... Seriously though for me I feel much more 'at home' in the positions particularly after 4.e3. I guess most people play the Nimzo for the positions after Black doubles the pawns whereas I don't..
Haha I wonder... Seriously though for me I feel much more 'at home' in the positions particularly after 4.e3. I guess most people play the Nimzo for the positions after Black doubles the pawns whereas I don't..
Well, the doubled pawns are something concrete you can build an attack on.
Whereas the lead in development after 4.Qc2 is much a win-or-die situation. If you have been slowly crushed by a pair of bishop before, you know what it means.
The best source to learn playing the Nimzo is the old landmark book by Gligoric, no matter how outdated the included theory is. If you can find a copy anywhere, just grab it. It is probably the best opening book ever written: The great Glika was always extremely objective in his evaluations (always playing against pieces, not opponents, and this just shows everywhere in the book.
Okay, I will look out for that!
I just won a game as Black in the aforementioned 4.f3 variation.
It was a "lucky" win (if you can call a win in a correspondence game as lucky!), factly I was stunned when my opponent sacrificed his knight, when 23.Nb4 would be flat equal (factly everything up to there has been played before in another correspondence game). In the post mortem, my opponent explained that when analysing, he had mistakenly put the other rook on b8!
Study the typical pawn structures... I suggest to you the idea of playing Bb4 and play with d6, Qe7 and later e5 the idea is to exchange the Dark Square Bishop and put the pawn on the dark squares because all your remaining minor pieces should be very good. I personally doesnt like the variation used by pfren not because its bad a lot of top players use it but its a matter of tastes.
Do you mean a Huebner variation?
I really don't think I fully understand the positions after c5 and d5. Interesting game though pfren
Interesting? Hmmm, I find it slightly dull.
After the accurate 15...Na6! Black has zero problems, but he could easily fall in the positional trap 15...Be6? 16.Nd4! and white has fantastic strategical compensation if Black takes the piece (although he has nothing better than that).
Typical theme of that variation! 16.Nd4!! Moskalenko write a book about opening and talk a lot about the Nimzoindian more specifically that variation.
I like 4...b6 against 4.e3 and 4.Nf6. It also helps to learn the QID with this as transpositions often occur. I like Dearing's Play the Nimzo Indian and Greet's Play the Queen's Indian.
What I like about the Nimzo is you can play it without knowing much theory. Black has enough flexibility to have more than one plan. Better than openings where you are having to walk a tightrope just to survive.
Basically try to control e4 and if swap bishop stick some pawns on black squares
Biggest problem with the Nmzo is white playing a boring Queens indian instead
What does it suggest against 4.a3, 4.f3, 4.Nf3 and 4.Bg5? Those are the lines I need to prepare something against.
The Bogo-Nimzo-Indian 4. Nf3 is a long separate topic. 
@Irontiger, that's funny because I find the Qc2 and e3 lines much easier to play than the f3/a3 lines!
Hum...
Either you are much more experienced than I am with it, or much less.
Guess what I'm thinking ?