Nimzo and Bogo indian middlegames are confusing?
Sort:
I sympathize with your confusion, but I think your question is to general. Why don’t you post a couple of games that puzzled you we can see if we can help
Jul 3, 2023
0
#3
The Nimzo-Indian can be confusing because unlike some openings, like say, the Benko Gambit Accepted or the Exchange Queen's Gambit, there is no single pawn structure. The different options for White and for Black all lead to vastly different centers. One line could see a blocked center while another may lead to a wide open position with an isolated queen pawn for White.
The Nimzo is not some random opening that you can just whip out randomly and say "I think I will play this opening" and expect to succeed.
Wolfy1997 wrote:
Hello, so I have been trying to learn these openings as black and have been playing them for a few months. Also I looked at GM games, mostly before 1980. They are all so different and difficult to understand. Does anyone else here find the arising middlegames confusing? They seem very dry at first, I find it difficult to find good squares for my pieces because it seems there are a lot of good options, don't know when to push d5 or c5, and often can't decide between them, and while the opponent does his thing I find a way to blunder.
One of my theories why I suck at these openings is I have been working on my tactics a lot for months, and these openings require a very positional mindset. How do you feel about those positions?
You might like this simplified method, as explained by Grandmaster Jesse Kraai:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC7MbqCYcJo
Essentially: you get your king bishop "out", then put your central pawns on dark squares. It's a very logical and straightforward approach.
Here's a wild game I played last month, using that same approach. White was very intent on trying to throw everything he had at Black to break things open, but the tactics didn't work in White's favor:
Hello, so I have been trying to learn these openings as black and have been playing them for a few months. Also I looked at GM games, mostly before 1980. They are all so different and difficult to understand. Does anyone else here find the arising middlegames confusing? They seem very dry at first, I find it difficult to find good squares for my pieces because it seems there are a lot of good options, don't know when to push d5 or c5, and often can't decide between them, and while the opponent does his thing I find a way to blunder.
One of my theories why I suck at these openings is I have been working on my tactics a lot for months, and these openings require a very positional mindset. How do you feel about those positions?