Here is the thing. I believe to have followed book moves until 9.Bf4, but I have never seen the pawn sacrifice before.
Is that sacrifice correct ? And what are the usual moves there ?
Nimzo-Indian, Capablanca variation, gone wrong (?)
Sort:
May 29, 2013
0
#2
Ca paraît jouable. A comparer avec cette autre variante, similaire, mais les Blancs y sont un peu mieux développés :
May 29, 2013
0
#3
Out of curiosity: why do you play the Nimzo-Indian with the exchange of the bishop versus the knight if you later state that the advantage of white is that he has the bishop pair? If you play the Nimzo-Indian then should you accept the exchange of the DSB with the knight.
After 7. f3 d5 8. cd5: Nd5?! 9. Qc2 is Ba6 preventing an immediate e4 and is the N on d5 preventing Bf4 for obvious reasons. Play might continu 10. Nh3 Nd7 11. e3 Bf1: 12. Rf1: c5 with the idea of Rc8.
On the eleventh move could white also play Nf4 and black answering with Ndf6 e4 Nf4: Bf4: c5 or directly c5. I think that black should try to get the c-file before white can even think of it. The bishop on a6 promises white that he will not castle with his king.
Thank you for all your comments.
Sharrocks, thanks for firing the computer, it looks like White is uncomfortable after 9...c5 10.dxc5 d4 piling on d3, even if Black does not get the pawn back.
hicetnunc : English please, other people are looking 
Approximate translation : "looks playable, see for instance that other variation where White is a bit more developed". Black is a bit more developped too.
LoekBergman : the pair of bishop loss is unavoidable in the Nimzo-Indian, but Black's job is to make sure he does not lose it for nothing. 8...Nxd5 9.Qc2 Ba6 ! looks convincing to me though. And it looks more "bookish" to me.
May 29, 2013
0
#5
Oops, there might be better move then Ba6 after 9. Qc2? for black, namely 9. Qh4+ 10. g3 Qd4: almost winning the game.
