Reti vs Nimzo

It is important to understand the "1.Nf3 Reti" is NOT the same as the "Reti Opening" which is 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 or any move order that would include those moves leading to this typical Reti formation shown here.

Black's second move would need to be 2...dxc4, 2...d4. 2...c6, or 2...e6. All other second moves are inferior and give White a good advantage. After 1...b6 White would be better to play 2.g3 or 2.e4 and go from there.

It is also important to understand that if White plays d4 at any time during the set-up (as your example does on move 4) it then transposes to a Queen's Gambit type of setup. Which leaves the Reti behind in the dust.

It is a widespread misconception that 1.Nf3 is the Reti Opening. It is not. 1.Nf3 is a move, and a single move is not an opening. ECO has labeled 1.Nf3 as "Reti" in order to honor Richard Reti and it has caused a great deal of confusion in the chess world.

Richard Reti developed his opening as an alternative to the Queen's Gambit. In fact, it could be thought of as the Queen's Gambit without d4.

wow. you just cleared a lot of stuff up there. why did you start this club as opposed to a reti opening club? And wouldn't this reti opening game I posted be more in line with the catalan?

1-This club is dedicated to the Reti Opening. What makes you think it is not?

2-Catalan maybe. I am not so familiar with the d4, c4, Nc3 variants. It's basically a Queen's Gambit setup but some people will play it against almost everything.

catalan is also similar to Queens Gambit but in the catalan the kingside fiancetto happens earlier in the opening which the queens gambit doesn't do at all to my knowlege. catalan uses the bishop to help the center pawns advance (kinda like the English), ideally gambiting the c4 pawn

Catalan is often referred to as a hybrid of the Queens Gambit and Reti. But I think Black needs to play ...d5 in order for it to be categorized as a Catalan.

Why do you say this club is not a Reti Opening club?

I was just asking. I thought reti was just nf3 and opening the door for different variations of reti. I know wiki says reti is nf3/c4 but I don't think that's correct

Wikipedia is correct.

In the latter part of the 1800s until 1920, 1.Nf3 was considered a "novelty" opening move. Zukertort occasionally started his games with 1.Nf3 but he would generally transpose into the popular openings of his era. Although he played it, he DID NOT develop a deep opening system based on 1.Nf3.

Prior to the early 1920s, the only opening moves that were considered sound were 1.e4 and 1.d4. Richard Reti was a young GM and he was looking for something different than occupation of the center by pawns. He DID develop a deep opening system based on 1.Nf3 and in the early 1920s he began to play it at the top levels.

After 1.Nf3 Black is left with only one center pawn response (c-pawn is a flank pawn) and that is 1...d5 to occupy the center. White immediately challenges Black's center with 2.c4.

Remember, chess is all about control of the center.

2...dxc4 Black "gives up" the center.

2....c6 or 2...e6 Black intends to defend his center.

2...d4 Black intends to expand and support his center control. This is usually considered Black's best option.

Reti's opening completely revolutionized the way chess was played. It became very popular. Nimzowitsch substituted 2.b3 for 2.c4. The English Opening 1.c4, which had been around for a long time, experienced a surge in popularity. Lots of other opening systems emerged and many of them were associated with Richard Reti's opening. But today we only recognize 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 as the basic idea. There can be several move orders to arrive at the basic setup.

BTW - 1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 is the "Symmetrical English", as is 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5.

It is a very boring and drawish fate which can befall the beautiful and exciting Reti Opening.

so a simple nf3 alone does not make it a reti opening?

Nope!

And the vast majority of people think 1.Nf3 is the Reti Opening. (I used to be one of them.)

It is the biggest misconception in all of chess.