A Novelty in the Nimzovich Defence (Miles Variation)

I'd like to introduce the reader to a highly original opening I've worked out by myself. It begins

1. e4 Nc6

We are already out of book - the Nimzovich Defence is rarely seen at any level. The late GM Anthony Miles used to play it, however. He was well known as a champion for offbeat openings, and once defeated Anatoly Karpov with 1. e4 a6

2. d4 e5

i.e. the Miles Variation. This is even more offbeat than 2...d5, but Black's idea is to tempt the advance 2...d5 in order to close up the position. The King's Indian Defence implements a similar idea.

3. d5 Nce7 4. Nf3 d6 5. Bd3 h6!? 6. c4 g5!?

Revealing a new innovative scheme. The positional idea is that the center is blocked, therefore the flank activity is justified. Besides this Black really wants to gain space for his pieces; they are sort of cramped at the moment.

After ...g5 Black is able to develop harmoniously with Ng6 and Bg7. Let us turn to an example game:

Dealing with 2. Nf3

The Nimzovich Defence works just fine with 2. d4, but Nf3 is said to give problems. The trouble is that if Black plays 1...e5 then we have suprisingly transposed into the Ruy Lopez, which is okay for Black - admittedly, but now the Nimzovich loses its surprise value.

However, I think d6 intending transposition works fine.

I'd like to add another game to the collection. This was played today under unrated control.

In this game you see White castling away to the queenside again, although Black soon discovers a way to get to him as well. White, believing that opposite-wing castling means that he gets a kingside attack by default, is shown the error of his ways when Black continues attacking down the kingside even though there is no King.

So I did attack on both kingside/queenside - gaining a winning position after just 19 moves. Of course, White didn't exactly play the opening very well either.

Interesting...

However, I thought 1 e4 Nc6 2 d4 e5 was called the Kennedy Variation, where White should continue:

Lol Kennedy, so it has a name. There is no mention of this on wikipedia - "2.d4 e5. A solid line favored by the late British Grandmaster Tony Miles"

And yes, I once studied several hundred Miles games several years back but I forgot most of them already. The tough thing about learning from Miles is that he does strange stuff that one isn't quite sure whether the move is good, or just novel.

As for your line, it works if Black is sleepwalking. But with alert play he can actually hit back very sharply, since White's advanced pawns are actually sort of hanging.

Okay, time for another game. This time the White player is keen on kingside castling, and gains ground very quickly on the queenside with the Bayonet Attack. However, after the mistake ...h3, Black develops a strong attack against the castled King.

This game really does illustrate how powerful the pawn storm with h6, g5, and f5 can become. Black, in my opinion, managed to get an improved version of the King's Indian Defence straight out of the unorthodox Nimzovich Defence.

It seems that the move 2...d4 hasn't been doing too well for White. Black seems to get a comfortable position easily.

Okay. Today I'd like to discuss the Nimzovich player's options when facing 2. Bb5!?

Black has a couple of options. He could challenge the bishop with ...a6, ignore the threat and just carry on with development, or try to bring the fight to White.

The way to do this is the sharp Nd4, cross-pollinating from the Trompowsky Attack. In my opinion presents White the greatest challenge.

The positions that result from this struggle of knight vs bishop are quite fluid, and various positions can result. Black should alter his strategy according to the position.

Okay. Today I'll like to talk about a variation which I'll call the "f4 Gambit" - since to my knowledge this has never been played before.

1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 e5 3. Nce7 f4!?

I feel that this move, f4, is a sharp way of challenging Black's strategy - White is prepared to take some risks, perhaps going down a pawn, in order to liquidate Black's center and gain the initiative.

The key question, therefore, is whether this works. This prompted me to analyze the line with Fritz, with the conclusion that White does not get enough compensation for the pawn.

Let's devote some analysis today to the Pirc-like position that can result from the Nf3 Nimzovich. What I mean is 1. e4 Nc6 2. Nf3 d6.

What's differences do these two knights make? Plenty.

1. The f-pawn is blocked, preventing White from using the aggressive Austrian Attack Setup (f4).
2. The central thrust d4 can now be answered with e5. Then regardless of whether White answers with dxe5 or d5 we are back in Nimzovich Defence territory.
3. Downside is that White can pin the knight with Bb5.

3.dxe5

Yes, the Tango System looks very convincing. It's better than what I played, anyway.

Black has a strong dark square grip, especially on the f4 square. Hence after 1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 e5 3. d5 Nce7, it seems White really has to go for 4. Nf3, to force Black to shut-in his dark-squared bishop.

Anyway for footnotes, here's my slightly inaccurate attempt to refute White's strategy (also a dark square grip, but a bit slow allowing White some counterplay):

 in your n-c3 line you stop it when white can force a very pleasant positional advantage.  e5 followed by h4!? Don't you think this poses some pretty serious problems to black?

According to Mr. Fritz e5 runs straight into d6 when suddenly White is in a bad endgame. Let's see what our silicon toy has to say:

The main drawback to 2...e5 instead of the mainline 2...d5 is the fact that White can forefully transpose into the Scotch Game with 3.Nf3 which kinda sucks. But either way I think 2...d5 is just as good, if not better in some ways.