How strong is the Nimzo-Larsen Attack ?
Sort:
What?
I find that the nimzo larsen can be a bit too kind to black in some lines. The way I got around this was by starting with 1.c4 and only then playing 2.b3. This move order gets you some light center pressure to slow black's advance a bit so that white has more options for attacking the center after they finish development.
On move 4, white usually has a choice between e3, a3, Nf3, or even g3(although g3 leads to a very different game in the example above, so don't play it unless you're well prepared)
I seen somebody mention that the london system from black can give the larsen some trouble. But with this move order , the g3 line plays very well against it. Furthermore, g3 against the symmetrical english will lead to a very nice game for white if played correctly. (fabianno carwanna used this setup against the symmetrical english if you want a good sample game, but do note he begins with Nf3 instead of c4)
Some things to note with this set up. You will not necessarily get sharp play or big initiatives unless black lets you. To utilize it correctly, you have to bank on the fact that white has a lot of different plans they can combine. Furthermore, this setup very often leads to heavy piece endgames. So it's important to study those type of endings.
The best part though, is that whenever black plays some crazy sideline, you always have the option to play e3 instead of g3 (or both against some f5 lines from black) which can give black headaches if they try to get active too quickly. In some cases (such as 1. ..., d5) you can ditch 2. b3 altogether and just play the english instead
Finally, I know a lot of people here will say that starting with Nf3 on move one is a better move order because it prevents an early e5 and avoids development issues with the knight, but I think it's a matter of preference as the Nf3 move order gives black d5 under better conditions than the c4 move order. I personally want to see moves like e5 and f5, so this fits my play. But I respectfully understand why others wouldn't like it.
P.S. I play this set up religiously with white, so if anyone likes it, you can check out my games to see what plans I use for different responses from black. Most of my plans are backed by engine analysis.
Apr 8, 2022
0
#23
Super_Saiyan_Pragmatist wrote:
I find that the nimzo larsen can be a bit too kind to black in some lines. The way I got around this was by starting with 1.c4 and only then playing 2.b3. This move order gets you some light center pressure to slow black's advance a bit so that white has more options for attacking the center after they finish development.
On move 4, white usually has a choice between e3, a3, Nf3, or even g3(although g3 leads to a very different game in the example above, so don't play it unless you're well prepared)
I seen somebody mention that the london system from black can give the larsen some trouble. But with this move order , the g3 line plays very well against it. Furthermore, g3 against the symmetrical english will lead to a very nice game for white if played correctly. (fabianno carwanna used this setup against the symmetrical english if you want a good sample game, but do note he begins with Nf3 instead of c4)
Some things to note with this set up. You will not necessarily get sharp play or big initiatives unless black lets you. To utilize it correctly, you have to bank on the fact that white has a lot of different plans they can combine. Furthermore, this setup very often leads to heavy piece endgames. So it's important to study those type of endings.
The best part though, is that whenever black plays some crazy sideline, you always have the option to play e3 instead of g3 (or both against some f5 lines from black) which can give black headaches if they try to get active too quickly. In some cases (such as 1. ..., d5) you can ditch 2. b3 altogether and just play the english instead
Finally, I know a lot of people here will say that starting with Nf3 on move one is a better move order because it prevents an early e5 and avoids development issues with the knight, but I think it's a matter of preference as the Nf3 move order gives black d5 under better conditions than the c4 move order. I personally want to see moves like e5 and f5, so this fits my play. But I respectfully understand why others wouldn't like it.
P.S. I play this set up religiously with white, so if anyone likes it, you can check out my games to see what plans I use for different responses from black. Most of my plans are backed by engine analysis.
honestly, i think this is an inferior move order. Eliminating the capacity to play bb5 in a lot of lines takes out a lot of superb asymmetrical variations out of your repertoire. if black plays d5, you get a katalymov sicilian a move up , but the katamylov is a little dubious to begin and the extra tempo of those lines really doesnt suit the white colors (same way 1.e4 e5 2.d3 while obviously objectively ok is "worse" as a white opening that the philidor 1.e4 e5 2.nf3 d6 is as a black one).
i would go as far as to say that for the white pieces, 1.c4 2.a3, with intention of b4 soon may very well be superior to 1.c4 2.b3. if You want a luxurious queen fianchetto without allowing black to easily get d5, you may as well get more space for it.
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
Super_Saiyan_Pragmatist wrote:
I find that the nimzo larsen can be a bit too kind to black in some lines. The way I got around this was by starting with 1.c4 and only then playing 2.b3. This move order gets you some light center pressure to slow black's advance a bit so that white has more options for attacking the center after they finish development.
On move 4, white usually has a choice between e3, a3, Nf3, or even g3(although g3 leads to a very different game in the example above, so don't play it unless you're well prepared)
I seen somebody mention that the london system from black can give the larsen some trouble. But with this move order , the g3 line plays very well against it. Furthermore, g3 against the symmetrical english will lead to a very nice game for white if played correctly. (fabianno carwanna used this setup against the symmetrical english if you want a good sample game, but do note he begins with Nf3 instead of c4)
Some things to note with this set up. You will not necessarily get sharp play or big initiatives unless black lets you. To utilize it correctly, you have to bank on the fact that white has a lot of different plans they can combine. Furthermore, this setup very often leads to heavy piece endgames. So it's important to study those type of endings.
The best part though, is that whenever black plays some crazy sideline, you always have the option to play e3 instead of g3 (or both against some f5 lines from black) which can give black headaches if they try to get active too quickly. In some cases (such as 1. ..., d5) you can ditch 2. b3 altogether and just play the english instead
Finally, I know a lot of people here will say that starting with Nf3 on move one is a better move order because it prevents an early e5 and avoids development issues with the knight, but I think it's a matter of preference as the Nf3 move order gives black d5 under better conditions than the c4 move order. I personally want to see moves like e5 and f5, so this fits my play. But I respectfully understand why others wouldn't like it.
P.S. I play this set up religiously with white, so if anyone likes it, you can check out my games to see what plans I use for different responses from black. Most of my plans are backed by engine analysis.
honestly, i think this is an inferior move order. Eliminating the capacity to play bb5 in a lot of lines takes out a lot of superb asymmetrical variations out of your repertoire. if black plays d5, you get a katalymov sicilian a move up , but the katamylov is a little dubious to begin and the extra tempo of those lines really doesnt suit the white colors (same way 1.e4 e5 2.d3 while obviously objectively ok is "worse" as a white opening that the philidor 1.e4 e5 2.nf3 d6 is as a black one).
i would go as far as to say that for the white pieces, 1.c4 2.a3, with intention of b4 soon may very well be superior to 1.c4 2.b3. if You want a luxurious queen fianchetto without allowing black to easily get d5, you may as well get more space for it.
I appreciate the feedback. I'm not sure that "inferior" is the correct way to describe it. It's true that in the sense of holistic opening prep, Nf3 is going to offer more flexibility. But if we're thinking like specialists who have a very deep endgame plan in mind, it's not necessary to leave all options open.
I think part of our philosophical divide here is that you arrived at b3 as a larsen player (presumably) and I arrived at it as an english player. In the larsen Bb5 is one of the key moves in some lines. In the english this isn't usually the case. It would take me too long over the keyboard to explain the endgame ideas that I'm shooting for. The easiest way to summarize my idea is that my plan involves trying to outplay my opponent in the endgame from move one by ensuring that my pawn structure will be superior in the endgames I'm shooting for and the move c4 is necessary to afford me enough time to stop black from completely taking over the center in the opening and I don't want to do this with e4 or d4 because I want my center flexible and if I play Nf3 then my opponent can throw me into a reti english which is not bad but also not part of my plan because I need to be able to meet d5 with cxd5 for my plan to work. I have actually seen the a3, b4 idea during my engine anaylsis. Your are 100 percent right about those moves. However, such a strategy is more geared toward early queenside play (I don't want my opponent to know where my play will be so early in the game) and the pawn structure does not fit the endgames I'm shooting for.
It's funny that you mention the katalimov defense because I play that sometimes as a surprise weapon (strictly in bullet). Just a fun fact. Do note that my intention is not usually to go into larsen lines, but g3 is usually my goal ( which puts me in the double fianchetto variation) The laresen lines are just an alternative option for me to use against certain setups.
Another point is that d5 is not a move that I'm worried about as I need the open c file in some lines to bolster my endgame ambitions.
Finally, I've ran this move order through stockfish at depth 40 and not only are the positions equal, but they are not symmetrical as you say. They are actually quite dynamic (the Nf3 continuation I suggested, for example, leads to a position where white gives up an exchange to go up a pawn and get the two bishops with connected passers with best engine moves). Given current chess theory, an equal position with white is perfectly acceptable from a meta game perspective.
P.S. This isn't really an argument for my move order, but I have beaten a few titled players with this opening. (full disclosure, I've lost to a few with it as well) Food for thought. I'm sorry if I didn't go into enough detail, but there are many different variations that could occur, so it's hard for me to give more concrete plans without discussing the different setups black and white can adopt. Once again, I sincerely appreciate the feedback as I am constantly trying to improve this setup. As a good faith gesture, I will note that I have experimented with playing Nf3 on move two against some of the non e5 lines before playing b3. If I was recommending the 2.b3 move order to someone who wanted a critically good position, I would tell them to only play it against the symmetrical english. But I'm a glutton for punishment so I play it against almost everything, lol.
B1ZMARK wrote:
Like any other decently sound opening, the nimzo larsen attack is only good if the person knows how to play it.
Yes but the difference is: in other structurally more sound openings (KID, QGD, English, Ruy, Sicilian) you can actually survive just by playing good chess. In the NLA you have to know the exact lines and pawn breaks in order to get the advantage from the bishops. So yes it's a playable opening up to the highest level, and Carlsen has won with it too, but it's not for beginners because one wrong move and the position crumbles like hüttenkäse.
Apr 8, 2022
0
#26
zone_chess wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
Like any other decently sound opening, the nimzo larsen attack is only good if the person knows how to play it.
Yes but the difference is: in other structurally more sound openings (KID, QGD, English, Ruy, Sicilian) you can actually survive just by playing good chess. In the NLA you have to know the exact lines and pawn breaks in order to get the advantage from the bishops. So yes it's a playable opening up to the highest level, and Carlsen has won with it too, but it's not for beginners because one wrong move and the position crumbles like hüttenkäse.
I mean… playing good chess is different for each opening. Someone who doesn’t know a lot of thematic ideas in the KID might just get slowly crushed by whites space advantage, for example. I feel like “good chess” is pretty vague. You also make it sound like playing for pawn breaks isn’t really good chess (I’m sure we both know it is, but the way you phrased it just gives off that feeling.)
Apr 8, 2022
0
#27
I like to play the Nimzo-Larsen, now and then, via 1.Nf3. (nf3 + b3)
If you're familiar with different d4 pawn structures, you can be flexible and just "play chess" after move 2, drawing upon your knowledge of different openings, and steering things in different directions, depending on what black does.
Sometimes you can have the game transpose into Queen's Gambit lines. Sometimes into Colle-Zuckertort lines. Sometimes you can aim for a Hedgehog structure and invite black to adopt a reversed Maroczy Bind. Sometimes you can play a Reversed Nimzo-Indian / Queen's Indian hybrid.
It definitely takes some study to get this point of flexibility, but that very flexibility is the main appeal. It can keep black on his toes, and can give him several ways to go wrong.
The Nimzo-Larsen has also become one of Hikaru's main go-to weapons over the past few years. He seems to mix it, mainly, with the Colle-Zuckertort ...
I go for a much more aggressive set-up against the 1.b3 where I gambit a pawn.
I cover this is more detail in my Lichess study. I put it all in one chess chapter so you can put it into Chesstempo to study all the lines without putting them all in yourselves. I allow it so you can share the study and clone it if you want to add your own touches to it
Apr 8, 2022
0
#29
Super_Saiyan_Pragmatist wrote:
I find that the nimzo larsen can be a bit too kind to black in some lines. The way I got around this was by starting with 1.c4 and only then playing 2.b3. This move order gets you some light center pressure to slow black's advance a bit so that white has more options for attacking the center after they finish development.
On move 4, white usually has a choice between e3, a3, Nf3, or even g3(although g3 leads to a very different game in the example above, so don't play it unless you're well prepared)
I seen somebody mention that the london system from black can give the larsen some trouble. But with this move order , the g3 line plays very well against it. Furthermore, g3 against the symmetrical english will lead to a very nice game for white if played correctly. (fabianno carwanna used this setup against the symmetrical english if you want a good sample game, but do note he begins with Nf3 instead of c4)
Some things to note with this set up. You will not necessarily get sharp play or big initiatives unless black lets you. To utilize it correctly, you have to bank on the fact that white has a lot of different plans they can combine. Furthermore, this setup very often leads to heavy piece endgames. So it's important to study those type of endings.
The best part though, is that whenever black plays some crazy sideline, you always have the option to play e3 instead of g3 (or both against some f5 lines from black) which can give black headaches if they try to get active too quickly. In some cases (such as 1. ..., d5) you can ditch 2. b3 altogether and just play the english instead
Finally, I know a lot of people here will say that starting with Nf3 on move one is a better move order because it prevents an early e5 and avoids development issues with the knight, but I think it's a matter of preference as the Nf3 move order gives black d5 under better conditions than the c4 move order. I personally want to see moves like e5 and f5, so this fits my play. But I respectfully understand why others wouldn't like it.
P.S. I play this set up religiously with white, so if anyone likes it, you can check out my games to see what plans I use for different responses from black. Most of my plans are backed by engine analysis.
That’s awesome. I just learned the 1.c4, x 2.b3 a couples week as ago. I dubbed it the “The Reversed Katalimov Sicilian”.
Ive been enjoying the hybrid ideas of the English and Larson Attack.
I just added the double Fianchetto set-up for when I want to switch it up to light squares counter play.
Its motivating to see somebody with more experience playing a similar game.
That’s awesome. I just learned the 1.c4, x 2.b3 a couples week as ago. I dubbed it the “The Reversed Katalimov Sicilian”.
Ive been enjoying the hybrid ideas of the English and Larson Attack.
I just added the double Fianchetto set-up for when I want to switch it up to light squares counter play.
Its motivating to see somebody with more experience playing a similar game.
Thank you. I appreciate it. I find that if black goes dark squares, then d4 is the key pawn break. This can be done in the double fianchetto setup as well, but it's not as good against a reverse sicilian, so if you want to be solid, then the e3 setup is nice. Against light squared plans, I go with double fianchetto and go with the engine play of d3 and then putting either knight on d2 with ideas of e4.
TL;DR I hope the opening has been kind to you.
Apr 8, 2022
0
#31
Super_Saiyan_Pragmatist wrote:
That’s awesome. I just learned the 1.c4, x 2.b3 a couples week as ago. I dubbed it the “The Reversed Katalimov Sicilian”.
Ive been enjoying the hybrid ideas of the English and Larson Attack.
I just added the double Fianchetto set-up for when I want to switch it up to light squares counter play.
Its motivating to see somebody with more experience playing a similar game.
Thank you. I appreciate it. I find that if black goes dark squares, then d4 is the key pawn break. This can be done in the double fianchetto setup as well, but it's not as good against a reverse sicilian, so if you want to be solid, then the e3 setup is nice. Against light squared plans, I go with double fianchetto and go with the engine play of d3 and then putting either knight on d2 with ideas of e4.
TL;DR I hope the opening has been kind to you.
Thanks for the heads up and I appreciate the information.
I was looking for a side line and experimented with first the reversed O’Kelly (see CM Darkunortho’s comments) and then this; preferring the reversed Katalimov for its flexibility and no glaring weaknesses.
Its been good to me immediately and actually went undefeated 3-0-2 (should of been 4-0-1) in my last two rapid tournaments which is why I am considering it to be my main line. I like the simplicity, flexibility and end game outcome.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1128831
Bent Larsen vs Boris Spassky
"When Pawns Attack"
USSR vs. Rest of the World (1970), Belgrade SRB, rd 2, Mar-31
Nimzo-Larsen Attack: Modern Variation (A01) · 0-1
... I just say this: 17 moves.
PirataTango wrote:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1128831
Bent Larsen vs Boris Spassky
"When Pawns Attack"
USSR vs. Rest of the World (1970), Belgrade SRB, rd 2, Mar-31
Nimzo-Larsen Attack: Modern Variation (A01) · 0-1
... I just say this: 17 moves.
Imagine a football game where team A has 1 player, and the opposing team has 11 players....
Which team will win?