Dzindzi-indian?

While looking for ambitious and intriguing Black set-ups vs queen pawn openings, I stumbled upon this example game demonstrating the Dzindzi-Indian. Always fun to see dogmatic chess rules be bent out of shape :D 

I wouldnt play it myself, but it seems to give interesting positions.

What if they play 3.nf3?  do you continue with c5 and hope to transpose?

Though shalt play e4 anyways and be better

Indeed, e4 is very possible and has been causing black some trouble. Anyway, Nf3 or e4 can be played when black cant play dzindi

There's about 363 games with it in the Game Explorer here and probably lots more at www.365chess.com. It looks interesting esp since it will probably surprise a lot of opponents - like me for instance  I'd probably dismiss it as a mistake if I first saw it OTB which would be a mistake all right - on my part.

Wow, really nice.

Players who play the Dzindzi Indian are usually also Sniper players. I was interested in The Sniper defense but often times it winds up being a Sicilian and I didn't like that about it. I'm not playing something offbeat just to find myself often times wind up swimming in mainstream waters.  

Nothing wrong with 2 e4, many players choose it. Then black heads for The Sniper, black still plays the same first three moves 1...g6, 2...Bg7, 3...c5 and still has ...Bxc3 on his mind if given the chance.

has the sniper gained any popularity at GM level? or is it one of those 'patzers choice' lines

I don't know the answer, I have my doubts. I have both Henley's book and Storey's book. I don't mind a bit of shakey foundation if something can still score well on the club level, which it very well may can. I just can't get by the Sicilian part of it, many times black is in an Accelerated Dragon, or Maroczy bind. Black can play it as Pterdactyl Sicilian in order to avoid some mainline stuff, but I gave up on playing the Sniper when a line eventually transposed from a Pterdactyl to a Dragon.

Not really my style anyway, I think I'm just going to stick with openings I'm more comfortable with - 3...Qd6 Scandinavian (Slav style), 4...dxc4 Slav (5...Na6 Smyslov variation, solid and avoids a lot of theory) and the Trompowsky/PseudoTrompowsky (I would say the London, but the London does too poorly against a couple of setups that black can play to suit me). I'll play the Tromp in a sort of London/Slav style whenever possible, such as 3 Nd2 or 3 e3 and not take the f6 knight unless it's necessary in a line. 

I like the ideas of Dzindzi-Indian, but yeah - after about 20 1. d4 g6 games now, 15 have gone 2. e4 and I'm stuck playing a Pirc or transposing into a Sicilian. Nothing inherently wrong with either of course, but I never play that against 1. e4 so I'm auto-stuck in systems I have no knowledge of / interest in, really. Bleh. :) Oh well, back to the drawing board ;)

I like the unorthodox ideas in this opening....anybody got anymore games of this??

playing e4 regardless of f5 and shoving the h pawn down the board both give black some serious headaches to deal with but it is definitly a playable opening

I would immediately adopt this if it wouldn't get me Pircs all day long.

Not a Dzindzi.  A Leningrad run amok.

So black trades off his dark-squared bishop and then proceeds to open up the dark-squares on both sides of the board...

not a fan

It's a concession for giving white a permanent pawn weakness and fighting for the center with f5, which would never be possible otherwise.  It's really not so much different than the Nimzo-Indian in principle.

...f5 can be played in the nimzo too, but without ...g6 and i have played this line once or twice myslef. Its very dutch-like, in fact. So why not just play the nimzo with ...f5?

White doesn't have to allow f5 in the Nimzo.

It also helps to be familiar with the Pirc/Modern because your opponent can avoid it as a whole with 2.e4, which I've been studying. Ron Henley advocated the Hippo with black if white avoided the Dzindzi lolol