Nimzo-Indian: Help!!!

I fear more the Capablanca (4.Qc2) than the Rubinstein (4.e3), but that's only because I usually don't manage to get much from the temporary initiative Black has in the Capablanca lines (White projects 5.a3 Bxc3 Qxc3 with the pair of bishops and an untouched pawn structure, but he has lost tempi moving the queen during that). As White I go for some mix of Capablanca and Rubinstein by (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4) 4.Qc2 d5 (4...0-0 is the other try, to get a stronghold on e4 by a future ...Bb7/...Ne4 and use it for attack) 5.e3 and although White has much of the trouble of the Rubinstein (the trapped c1 bishop) he has a very clear plan to expand in the center with moves like Rd1, f3, e4, while Black has no real plan.

Yet, as usual with opening played on GM level today, both are perfectly playable and of equal value (at least for what we are concerned), so choose accordingly to your ability in the positions that result from it.

Well, I never said that I was planning to play d4, as mentioned, I play e4, and against d4, I use KID. I'll try to find the book, but I doubt I will use it.

Sorry. Not really a big fan of the catalan.

The Samisch is all right if you are an attacking player.   In the Samisch you need to ignor Black's threats to the c4 and go after his king.  There are several ways to this depending on how Black defends.  One way is a massive pawn roller which is the way Botvinnik defeated Capablanca at the AVRO tournament.  The pawn roller is the way Reshevsky beat Fischer in their aborted 1961 match.  Another way is for White to attack with the Smaisch is to attack with the f-pawn to which is the way Samisch beat Capablanca.  A third scenario is queenside castling by White.  This all requires good attacking technique and is not for the faint hearted.  It is probably best to play a deferred Samisch and only play a3 when appropriate. 

Botvinik-Capablanca was a Rubinstein variation, wasn't it ? It featured indeed the center pawn roll f3-e4, but then Black had no counterplay precisely because there was not a weakness on c4.

And queenside castling, when you doubled the c pawns and that Black has a development edge (due to your pawn moves a3, f3, etc.) is certainly "not for the faint hearted"...

Pushing the f pawn sounds far more reasonable to me.

I would call Botvinik - Capablanca a deferred Samisch because a3 occurred on the 5th move and generally in the Rubinstein, if you play a3, it comes later.  I don't know how much difference it makes because the Nimzo-Indian is more about ideas than specific variations. 

It does make a huge difference. In the Rubinstein White does not force Black to give up the pair of bishops immediately, does not get doubled pawns, and does not get late in development, but traps his c1 bishop behind the e3 pawn. Ok, it's about ideas and not exactly the move order, but the ideas are very different here.

In the Botvinnik - Capablanca game Black gives up the bishop pair and plays Bxc3 on move 5 which results in doubled pawns.   Below is the positon  of Botvinnik - Capablanca after 5 moves.  In the Rubinstein Variation White developes both his knights, plays the bishop to d3 and castles, before he thinks about playing a3.

Look carefully at the position of post #48. Both players have played (due to the move order) a move that favors their opponent : Black has played ...d5 which allows White to get rid of his weakness c4, and White has played e3 that traps the Bc1.

This looks much more like a Rubinstein that like a Saemisch (White's e4 is not on the agenda for the next five moves, even if it is a long-term goal, and Black does not create counterplay against c4, as it will soon disappear).

The question of whether Botvinnik - Capablanca is a deferred Samisch or a Rubinstein is somewhat irrelevant.  The point is that if you play the deferred Samisch it is a game that is helpful to know because the middlegame pawn steamroller is helpful to have in your arsenal.  You should study  all Nimzo-Indian middlegames not just ones that arose from your exact variation.   BTW way I just realized I made a typo when I was setting out the various scenarios that could arise from the deferred Samisch.  I said another possibility was queenside castling by "WHITE", I of course meant queenside castling by "BLACK".  Queenside castling by White is definitely not recommended with the doubled c-pawn complex.

Agreed.

But of course, if you play White you just need to feel comfortable with one line ; for instance, no need to study extensively 4.Qc2 if you only play 4.e3 (for example), except for the transposition tricks of course.

Still, the "deferred Saemisch" (4.e3 d5 5.a3) has not much to do with the "real" Saemisch (4.a3)...

How much the deferred Saemisch has to do with the Saemisch depends on the individual.  Some are more disposed to transposing to Saemisch lines.  For instance:

does pf6 at #24  help black....allowing his Queen access to g7 anf f7 ??

try the Colle-Zukertort against it,(C-Z), also known as the Rubinstein attack.

David Rudel has written a couple of books on it! 

Looks to me like 24...f6 offers Black more resistance.

You must be talking about something else. Colle-Zukertort does not include the c4 move (which is necessary to play the Nimzo-Indian). The Rubinstein is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3.

And yes, in the game of #53 It could have transposed to the Saemisch after (for instance) 6...b6 followed by ...Nc6-a5 and ...Ba6. But it wasn't the case.

can anybody show me a game of the rubenstein

I love Rubinstein attack/Colle Zukertort :D It avoids all the queens gambit theory and Nimzo-Indian

I think that's AS WHITE, is Colle-Zukertort, pretty close anyway, exept the bishop's travel to b4...:-)