I can't understand why 7...cxd4 wouldn't be the mainline as opposed to 7...Bxc3. But my e-book on the nimzo suggests 8...b6 as an improvement to this. I suppose maintaining the central pressure and allowing bishop development is superior.
Nimzo-Indian and 4.Qc2
Sort:
Nov 19, 2010
0
#3
rdecredico wrote:
I think the whole Qc2 variation is shelved now because Black gets easy equality in several variations.
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1285445480
I think the main line heavily favors Black:
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 d5 5. a3 Bxc3 6. Qxc3 Ne4 7. Qc2 c5 8. dxc5 Nc6 9. cxd5 exd5
I think there is something to be said about avoiding the whole NID complex and punting with 3.g3.
Cool site! Thanks for the link.
Punt with 3.g3? How would you respond to 3...c5?
6.d5?? was just a curiosity, nothing more.
3. g3, not 3. b3. ;)
Nov 19, 2010
0
#5
Hypocrism wrote:
I can't understand why 7...cxd4 wouldn't be the mainline as opposed to 7...Bxc3. But my e-book on the nimzo suggests 8...b6 as an improvement to this. I suppose maintaining the central pressure and allowing bishop development is superior.
I don't know. Perhaps someone can enlighten us. 
Houdini with 2CPU (about as strong as Rybka) produced two continuations with 7...Bxc3+ the best at = (0.11), and 7...cxd4 in second at +/= (0.49).
So, Black has equality after 7...Bxc3+ while White has a slight advantage after 7...cxd4.
Nov 19, 2010
0
#7
rdecredico wrote:
Agianst 3. ...c5 I play 4. d5 and go into a fianchetoed variation against Benoni and aim to play Rb1 line against the Benko. I aim for space advantage and keeping the Bishop pair whenever possible.
Against 3. ...d5 we have a Catalan, but White can simply develop pieces in a sensible way following common sense chess ideas. At the level I play otb (U/2000) no one has the most testing lines against the Catalan memorized too well so we are each on our own from very early in the contest.
I've been beaten down by the Nimzo and am tired of groveling for draws from the White side against it...hehehe Black has so many great lines and it is definitely one of Black very best, and solid defense and really hard to break down as White. I would find even 1800 players would bust out 12-15 moves of the latest theory in the Nimzo in the Main lines and it got to be mighty discouraging for me to keep seeing the latest black improvement time and time again. When I switch to 4.e3 in the NID I kept seeing Hubner variation and that is like banging head against a hard wall for me....so...
A very good read. Thank you. It sounds like playing against the Nimzo is difficult, to say the least.
In nimzo-indian with 4.Qc2 I usually play 4...O-O instead of 4...d5 . It is a more quiet line, you don't need to play so agressively. You have positional compensation other than initiative.
I like 4.qc2 just for the bishop pair frankly ( I do tend to overrate bishops sometimes though)
Nov 20, 2010
0
#10
Estragon wrote:
The Nimzo is a very solid defense, but White's preferences, like most openings, runs in cycles. When one line starts finding success, everyone starts playing it, both sides keep improving the variations until it seems stuck (as either an edge for White or equal for Black) and fashion moves on to a new variation.
4 Qc2 is an older move rehabilitated nearly 20 years ago, and it started scoring pretty well. Black eventually caught up with most of it, so White begins looking around again. Probably still the most frequently played line right now, although there is renewed interest in the Rubenstein (4 e3), where White can often get a small but lasting edge.
Once the popularity swings back to that, everyone will concentrate on it again, but in a few years someone will have found something else in 4 Qc2 or another line, and fashions change again.
The Catalan's popularity is in part fueled by Black's success with the Nimzoindian.
Thanks for the historical perspective.
After the Nimzo Indian Defense main line - 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 - why is 4.Bg5 and 4.Bd2 not that popular?
I'm new to playing 1.d4, and so far, developing White's dark squared bishop has been a real pain, especially when playing the Queen's Gambit. It's rare when I get my dark squared bishop outside of the pawn chain. The move e2-e3 usually comes first, blocking the c1-h6 diagonal for Bc1.
I understand the idea behind e2-e3, which is to open the f1-a6 diagonal for Bf1, and to recapture on c4 in some lines.
It seems like a good line for White would be one where Bc1 develops first, either outside of the pawn chain, or to the d2 square, and then play e2-e3.
What's the idea behind allowing Bc1 to stay on the back rank for a longer period of time, delaying the connection of rooks?
I found this move order in Game Explorer after the Nimzo with Bc1-Bd2 and Bf1-Bg2.
Nov 21, 2010
0
#11
@ rdecredico - Estragon - paulgottlieb
Wow! Those were great explanations of the various options for White along with the reasons behind the moves.
You guys need to team up and write a book on the Nimzo!
Thank you.
In 1993, Larry Christianson defeated Karpov using the ancient Spielmann (4.Qb3) variation. One is surprised that this line isn't more popular. IM Jeremy Silman told me in an e-mail that he'd prefer the Spielmann line to the Leningrad variation, fwiw.
No 4.bd2 is a pretty bad mive. Black just plays d5 and has a superior version of the queen's gambit with whites bishop passively on d2 instead of g5. And if white then proceeds to bring it to g5 it just wastes a move. Dont play bd2.
rdecredico wrote:
Bd2 is passive but very playable and good to use against booked up Nimzo-heads as an occasional try. It tends to clog in the d-file a bit and sometimes the pieces get in each other's way for white.
Bg5 is a viable variation, rather sharp, called the Lenningrad variation and was a favorite of Spassky. I think Black responds with ...c5 and starts attacking the white center right away and a double edged battle ensues. This is a decent choice for people that may want to try for some early fireworks and good chances that people of my ilk won't be familiar with the line so muvch as it has been out of fashion at high levels for a while.
Both allow Black to equalize and get a good game if Black knows the lines but are emminently playable for white. Of course, the entire NID complex lets black equalize and get a playable game, so I would recommend exploring all these options in training games and seeing which one feels more 'comfortable' and allows you to get playable positions in which you understand the ideas and strategic elements.
Also worth trying is 4. a3 and simply grabbing the B-pair and playing with the double-pawns, which have their own set of strategic complexities and nuance and while technically weak, gives white quicker development to try to grab advantage before Black can work on the weakness they create. In these lines, white often gambits the c-pawns to gain time to attack while black is spenidn time taking them. Allow black to build up the attack on the c4 square and then realizing only one piece can sit there, boot the pawn to get their pieces out of action on the Q-side while active operations are underatken against the Black king. It's never as easy as it sounds, but it is a strategic idea that works well if white tinkers with it and times the pawn dump properly.
I would try each and every option as white on a site like this where the downside to losing is minimal to zero.
hi
hi
Oct 29, 2018
0
#18
Nice Info. I also find interesting summary of Qc2 variation here: https://www.chessonly.com/nimzo-indian-qc2/
4.Qc2 may be the only way to ensure that Black can't double White's pawns on the c-file. What line do you like for White against the Nimzo-Indian Defense?