Of the 2 pawns from the original position, the pawn at c2 is much more likely to be advanced than the f2 pawn. I would prefer Nf3, but then I know the following overarching principle of chess:
Winning chess is the strategically/tactically correct advance of the pawn mass.
If you would like to know more, please let me know.
PLay 3.Nc3 and on 3...Bb4 play 4.Qc2 , the classical variation, it's very good.
Pretty much a matter of taste, and probably the rest of white's repertoire.
I still believe that the Rubinstein Nimzo is the acid test of Black's opening concept, but it's admittedly very complex, and very theoretical.
White can choose 3. Nc3 (Nimzo-Indian) or 3. Nf3 (Queen's Indian).
For a positional player, which one is better for white?
Could you please tell me what you consider to be a positional player?
Based on your answer I can answer your question. Whether Nc3 or Nf3 is better for a positional player?
You may already know this but it is always about the right perspective. The right perspective begins first with the fact that Chess is siege warfare in the form of a board game. Second that there are 2 Chess Opening Theories:
Classical Chess Opening Theory: Control the center by occupying it with your pawns and pieces.
Hypermodern Chess Opening Theory: Control the center with the power of your pawns and pieces. With this method you do not create targets for your opponent in the center.
Just to be clear the central squares (center) are (d4, e4, d5, e5)
After you answer my question, I will be able to talk to you about the Queen's Indian Defense, Nimzo-Indian, Bogo-Indian, Benoni, Catalan, etc.
White can choose 3. Nc3 (Nimzo-Indian) or 3. Nf3 (Queen's Indian).
For a positional player, which one is better for white?
Could you please tell me what you consider to be a positional player?
Based on your answer I can answer your question. Whether Nc3 or Nf3 is better for a positional player?
You may already know this but it is always about the right perspective. The right perspective begins first with the fact that Chess is siege warfare in the form of a board game. Second that there are 2 Chess Opening Theories:
Classical Chess Opening Theory: Control the center by occupying it with your pawns and pieces.
Hypermodern Chess Opening Theory: Control the center with the power of your pawns and pieces. With this method you do not create targets for your opponent in the center.
Just to be clear the central squares (center) are (d4, e4, d5, e5)
After you answer my question, I will be able to talk to you about the Queen's Indian Defense, Nimzo-Indian, Bogo-Indian, Benoni, Catalan, etc.
I would consider Tigran Petrosian and Anatoly Karpov as positional players.
Looking forward to your reply, transpo!
Of the 2 pawns from the original position, the pawn at c2 is much more likely to be advanced than the f2 pawn. I would prefer Nf3, but then I know the following overarching principle of chess:
Winning chess is the strategically/tactically correct advance of the pawn mass.
If you would like to know more, please let me know.
Could you tell me more about this, please?
I think the NimzoIndian is more of an aggressive, attacking defense than the Queen's Indian, which I have found to be positionally sound but passive. Just my opinion.
Of the 2 pawns from the original position, the pawn at c2 is much more likely to be advanced than the f2 pawn. I would prefer Nf3, but then I know the following overarching principle of chess:
Winning chess is the strategically/tactically correct advance of the pawn mass.
If you would like to know more, please let me know.
Could you tell me more about this, please?
One of the rules of chess is that pawns cannot move backwards. That is the main reason why the overarching principle, Winning chess is the strategically/tactically correct advance of the pawn mass, irrevocably true.
Pawn structure forms the hills, mountains and valleys of the battlefield on the chess board. If your plan off attack in a game calls for your army to go thru a mountain then your plan is doomed to failure.
My wording is paraphrased from 2 publications:
"My System", by Aaron Nimzowitsch
"Pawn Power In Chess", by Hans Kmoch
These 2 publications are almost every strong players( Bible and Condordance) essential references.
Which one would be more defensive and cautious for white? 3. Nc3 or 3. Nf3?
White can choose 3. Nc3 (Nimzo-Indian) or 3. Nf3 (Queen's Indian).
For a positional player, which one is better for white?
Could you please tell me what you consider to be a positional player?
Based on your answer I can answer your question. Whether Nc3 or Nf3 is better for a positional player?
You may already know this but it is always about the right perspective. The right perspective begins first with the fact that Chess is siege warfare in the form of a board game. Second that there are 2 Chess Opening Theories:
Classical Chess Opening Theory: Control the center by occupying it with your pawns and pieces.
Hypermodern Chess Opening Theory: Control the center with the power of your pawns and pieces. With this method you do not create targets for your opponent in the center.
Just to be clear the central squares (center) are (d4, e4, d5, e5)
After you answer my question, I will be able to talk to you about the Queen's Indian Defense, Nimzo-Indian, Bogo-Indian, Benoni, Catalan, etc.
I would consider Tigran Petrosian and Anatoly Karpov as positional players.
Looking forward to your reply, transpo!
WC Tigran Petrosian was the quitessential positional player.
WC Anatoly Karpov played the sweet science of positional play at the cutting edge/forefront of chess practice.
Personal note: Anatoly Karpov's second for a year in preparation for his WC match against WC Garry Kasparov was IGM Ron Henley.
Ron Henley and I lived together for a year. I learn alot from him.
I have to go to dinner now. I will write more a little later
I'd say the Queen's Indian is more positional in nature, while the Nimzo-Indian is more aggressive.
A lot of players I've noticed will try to avoid the Nimzo-Indian at move 3, when Black's position can transpose to either one. I think this is a testament to the rather unsettling nature of the Nimzo-Indian.
I'd study both, just to give yourself more options, as the transpositional abilities of these openings I've found to be one of their strengths.
For a positional player, I recommend 3.Nc3, and answering 3...Bb4 with 4.e3!
Speaking as one that does play the Exchange QGD, that's a major reason I play 3.Nc3 and not 3.Nf3. The Rubinstein Variation of the Nimzo-Indian (4.e3) can often lead to the same Carlsbad Pawn Structure that you get in the Exchange QGD. Not always, of course. Black has a say in what happens as well.
@knowthyself,
This is the 3rd time I trying to post something to you.
There are 2 books that you absolutely must read and study cover to cover:
1. "My System", by Aaron Nimzowitsch
2. "Pawn Power In Chess", Hans Kmoch
Each book is $15 + s&h or less on line at Amazon or Barnes Noble
The 2 things you need to keep in mind while studying these 2 books are:
1. Chess siege warfare in the form a board game. Siege warfare, what the hell is that. It has been used in many forms by human armies throughout history. No matter the type they all 3 methodologies (strategies) in common. Those 3 are restrain, blockade and execute the enemy. My System explains those 3 and alot more in detail.
Everything about pawns in siege warfare on the chess board is insightfully explained, especially regarding pawn structure on pages 107 thru 173. As a bonus Mr. Kmoch explains that almost all openings result in 6 characteristic pawn structures. He sheds light on how to handle those 6 pawn stuctures from both sides on the same pages 107 -173 and also on pages 174-300 which is the end of the book.
It will take several months for you to begin thinking in terms of restrain, blockade and execute and pawn structures. It may take as long as 2 years before your brain reoutlines the outline of chess knowledyou have in your head and inserts restrain, blockade and execute concepts and methodologies. Also pawn structures and how to handle them from both sides. Finally your brain will reoutline to include the intricacies of Hypermodern Chess Opening Theory. The book (My System, by Aaron Nimzowitsch) is an encyclopedia on Hypermodern Theory. The book (Pawn Power In Chess, by Hans Kmoch) is the authority on the pawn in siege warfare and pawn structure.
If you have any questions, please let me know as you are reading along.
@knowthyself
Like everything in life the Hypermodern Chess Opening Theory has advantages and disadvantages. You probably know this, but there are 3 advantages in chess (time, space, and material) The main disadvantage to Hypermodern Theory is that it is subjec to the opponent gaining an advantage in space.
The main countermeasures are the "small but secure center" and "manouvering along inner lines" as amply explained in the Book "My System"
The other counter measure in combination with the 2 above is the preparation of the "pawn break" The pawn break is the first move in the attack to take control of the center and occupy it at d4,e4,d5,e5 when the time comes that you can overpower your opponent in the center. In the book Pawn Power In Chess is explain in isightful detail the pawn break (Kmoch labels it a "lever") If you remember I mentioned the blocking in of the c and f pawns by the Ns. Because of the need for a pawn break, it is preferable to play c4 rather than f4 as the pawn break. This is so because most of the time White castles on the Kingside. The pawn break, in fact the move f4 has a weakening effect on the castled King position. That is why I wrote that I preferred 1.Nf3 to 1.Nc3. However, 1.Nc3 is just as playable as 1.Nf3. It is just that you have to be aware of wht is written above. It is necesary to make special preparations for an f4 pawn break.
After you have read and studied both books we will discuss all of it and how it relates to all of the openings you and I have mentioned on this topic.
If you have any questions, please let me know as you read along.
Pretty much a matter of taste, and probably the rest of white's repertoire.
I still believe that the Rubinstein Nimzo is the acid test of Black's opening concept, but it's admittedly very complex, and very theoretical.
But ought it really be down to a matter of taste? I see it claimed that the Nimzo is the best response to 1. d4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOtapT2M2dQ . If this is true, then shouldn't white try to avoid it in favor of the queen's indian or another line?
Anyone can claim anything.
By adopting 3.Nf3 white makes some concessions, like:
1. Allows QGD Ragozin.
2. Allows Black avoiding a couple of critical Benoni lines after 3...c5.
3. Effectively forgets about playing the QGD exchange variation, since he already has a horsey on f3.
Pretty much a matter of taste, and probably the rest of white's repertoire.
I still believe that the Rubinstein Nimzo is the acid test of Black's opening concept, but it's admittedly very complex, and very theoretical.
What do you consider the acid test after the 3 responses:
Pretty much a matter of taste, and probably the rest of white's repertoire.
I still believe that the Rubinstein Nimzo is the acid test of Black's opening concept, but it's admittedly very complex, and very theoretical.
But ought it really be down to a matter of taste? I see it claimed that the Nimzo is the best response to 1. d4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOtapT2M2dQ . If this is true, then shouldn't white try to avoid it in favor of the queen's indian or another line?
What- don't you have a taste in chess?
And why should I care what this guy is advocating on youtube?
Why do you have to avoid something that... well, you don't know what it is?
Would you hide yourself in a bunker if someone on the net claimed that WW IV starts in five minutes?
I would consider VERY reasonable to avoid something that you KNOW what it is, and why it is bad. Not because the mayor of your village considers it bad, though...
White can choose 3. Nc3 (Nimzo-Indian) or 3. Nf3 (Queen's Indian).
For a positional player, which one is better for white?