Creating A Chess Opening: Queen's Indian Attack Challenge

I've been exploring the King's Indian Attack/Benko's opening and was curious about a Queen side variant. From what I've read there is no such thing as a Queen's Indian Attack ever recorded. (If this is incorrect, by all means correct me. I'd be interested in any relevant games to study.). So I decided to see if I could construct an effective one.

So to start I have for white: 

 So there are 2 immediate issues to address: 1. The fact that f2 is undefended with this opening thus far. 2. What might be the best positioning for the Queen to allow a Queen side castle?

I look forward to anyone's thoughts and analysis!

1.b3 and 2.Bb2 already comprise the Nimzovich/Larsen opening, so the idea that no such similar setup has ever occurred is wrong.  What is also wrong is playing Nc3 -- it blocks both the Bb2 and the c-pawn -- in these non-1.e4-openings, the c-pawn often goes to c4, and only then does Nc3 get played.  Considering which (that c4 gets played) it's very uncommon to castle long into a weakened pawn formation.

After 1.b3 and 2.Bb2 typically White plays 3.e3 and then he starts developing his kingside pieces and/or playing c4 as mentioned above.  In which case the "weakness" on f2 is immaterial, with the pawn on e3 blocking one diagonal, and a Nf3 blocking both the f-file, and preventing ...Qh4

My advice: stop trying to come up with "new" openings -- it's highly unlikely.  If anything you might come up with a new variation on move 5 or 6 or 7 if you're lucky, of an established opening, but no new opening any earlier than that is likely to be any good.

Why not explore the Colle - Zukertort if you want that formation attack?

here is a sample game

Be also aware that White can play the Nimzo-Larsen with this move order (that's usually what I do to prevent an early ...e5), though in this case the b1 Knight does not block the long diagonal.

But your idea does not sound stupid. It can be an interesting work to do, even if it goes nowhere (because we would know why).

Could you possibly explain what you are trying to achieve by playing like that? What is the chess logic behind that setup (if there is one)?

If your aim is just inventing a new, subpar opening, then you have succeeded- but you are not alone.

Thanks for all the discussion! My goal was just to try a Queen side variant of King's Indian attack, but as I mentioned, but there wasn't such an opening by that name. At my local chess club last night I was informed that this opening is actually Larsen's opening. (I admittedly found it odd that such an opening supposedly didn't exist, but now I have a better understanding of the situation.). I will definitely go through the games that have been cited thus far.

(In the Nimzo-Larsen opening, the Knight is usually NOT in c3, but in d2 and the d pawn in d3 in order to keep the long diagonal free for the Bishop)

In game number 2, GM Gelashvili (Mr. B3) plays the Colle-Zukertort opening (also called Yussupovska by IM Bogdanov).

Game 1 is usually shown to Colle-Zukertort learners because of the thematic double Bishop sacrifices. Actually, the only difference with the Colle-Zukertort in the final position is that the d pawn is still in d2 while it would have been in d4 before playing dxc5.

Hmm, all the games shown here result in white castling King-side.  I'm looking at a Queen-side castle formation, like this:

There's this gambit against the French:

https://www.chess.com/opening/eco/C00_French_Defense_Horwitz_Attack_Papa_Ticulat_Gambit

Play often goes 3...dxe4 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Qe2 followed by 6.0-0-0

That move order has a huge problem, that is 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 f6!

If 3.Bb2 e5 Black's pawn center is effectively limiting both of White's developed pieces.  3.d4 is the most logical move to prevent Black's immediate ..e5, but if Black continues to play the opening aggressively with 3...c5! White is forced into playing some kind of a reversed defense where b3 doesn't really fit.

I don't think any moderately sane chessplayer would like being Black after 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 f6?! 3.d4 c5 4.e3.

Black may try another gambit-style way to make 2...f6?! look sound, but 3...c5 is definitely not the way.

Why b3 would not fit here?

Though, the ...f6 idea may require precision on White side with ...c5 first:

1.Nf3 d5 2. b3 c5 and now 3.e3 is considered to be the accurate move order, not 3.Bb2?! in account of 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 c5 3.Bb2 f6 after which White is likely to face a very annoying "constrictor-type" game.

It is usually considered as such since the following titans game:

https://www.chess.com/games/view?id=186826

(It happens that I mentionned this game in the following thread about Petrosian which is now buried under a pile of "look at my funny comments and my patzer game" topics. I would be glad to know your analysis on this other thread, pfren.)

Just curious: Why white should avoid something like 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 c5 3.Bb2 f6 4.e4 dxe4 5.Nh4?

I would gladly take white here...

@pfren:

I said "it is usually considered as such" on purpose: it is broadly said to avoid this move order in books on the Nimzo-Larsen and the Petrosian-Fischer game is often given as example.

I have in mind the MI Lakdawala book for instance. Regarding the concrete reasons, I don't have my repertoire, computer, nor these books in front of me and I just remember that every variation I looked at was unepleasant to me against a strong Black center and White was somehow "suffocating".

However the line you propose with e4, leading to positions I would like to play at first sight, looks new to me (or maybe it's just my goldfish memory that is at work...).

Jengaias, there is no such thing as the "Queen's Indian Attack".

Your first example is Bird's Opening

Your second example is a Colle-Zukertort

In a nutshell, NO, You are wrong once again!  (No Surprise)

I'm not even going to attempt to put in diagrams.  Get a board and do it yourself.  The one thing I hate about this new interface is any time I try to put in 2 or more diagrams in a message, only one shows, usually the last one.

The main difference between the Reti and KIA is the c-pawn.  In the Reti, it goes to c4.  In the KIA, it does not, and usually either goes to c3 or remains at home.  The other thing to note is that the e-pawn almost never goes to e4 in the Reti, and is, by definition, part of the King's Indian Attack.  Both openings have NUMEROUS move orders to get to them.  Below are just one example of each to illustrate the difference:

Reti:  1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.O-O Be7 5.c4 O-O 6.b3 (6.d4 would be a direct transposition to the Catalan)

King's Indian Attack:  1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.O-O Be7 5.d3 c5 6.Nbd2 Nc6 7.Re1 O-O 8.e4 (The c-pawn, if it moves, will usually go to c3)

He is right.  That is the difference between the Reti and the KIA.  The Reti is a reversed Benoni, the defining feature is the tension between the c4 pawn and d5 pawn without White playing d4.  White doesn't even have to play g3 necessarily.  At some point it became trendy to play with e3, Qc2, b3, Bb2 etc. instead vs. the Slav setup.

Of course, either way there is the possibility to have pawns on both e4 and c4.  General practice is to call the opening by what it started as.

The game in #23 is a King's Indian Attack.  It is not a "well known Reti line" and isn't even a well known KIA line.  The Qe1 is odd here, that idea is normally seen against the ..Bf5 defense because it helps White get in e2-e4.

.... What?