Nimzo Indian

As to the question "Why allow the Nimzo at all?" there are a lot of answers -

First, keeping my transpositions straight: If my opponent goes 3...d5, I'm in the main main main line of the QGD, leaving all of my study there accessible (I've worked through everything QGD in Watson, half of Shandorf, and most of the world championship match between Alekhine and Capablanca, so I'm booked to the gills)

Second, I don't like the Bogo - it's just taste....I feel like every try is either ugly or boring. Maybe I'll switch back to a Nf3 c4 d4 setup (many players do this to avoid the Nimzo), but for now I'd like to see if the devil I don't know yields a more interesting game of chess. 

Really though, the reason is philosophical - I think the bishop pair is more important than a weak pawn, and playing the white side of the Nimzo is the way to 'prove' this assertion. Of course, it's not really true - structure and the bishop pair are both long term advantages that can both make or break games in their own ways, and engaging this opening head on is a really wonderful way to explore the concepts of structure and material imbalance through book theory AND play. 

Why not the Catalan? It's a perfectly lovely opening, and, as a Nf3 enthusiast, I've definitely played a lot of the KIA, but I'm interested in exploring the dreaded Nimzo.....if it's really unbearable, I can easily switch it up and go with the QID/Bogo where I know the structures well. 

Thanks for your analysis of the Qb3 line, pfren - Shandorff spills a lot of ink on the idea that the main lines are 'main' because the other lines were found wanting.....this isn't always true, but it's a really important rule to consider when picking an opening (and a key reason that I have no patience with booking up on gambits no one's heard of)

I don't usually open QP much anymore but if I remember right the trouble facing the Nimzo is that if you want the B-pair you usually take lousy pawns, if you want decent pawns you lose the B-pair and if you try to hold both you usually lose a lot of initiative and face some Kside heat.

I usually went with White Qc2 eventually giving up the QB but keeping good structure so likely draw but with chances if Black errs. I used to goof around with a slow play version I saw, Korchnoi-Petrosian Armenia 1965, that was interesting.

As Black, I recall facing the Qc2 with White developing the QB and getting it to g3 via h4. Though I can't remember the exact details I'm pretty sure that that played better for White. Though I likely misplayed what felt like a very sharp line. If you're looking for a relatively aggressive Nimzo response that might be a consideration.  

I probably won't see it the Nimzo with White anymore but this discussion has kind of motivated me to try it more with Black. 

I've never won against Qc2 but I have against pretty much every other line, it's just so super solid that it's hard to get any kind of counter play. I recently started playing the Nc6 system with lots of draws and losses..

Don't avoid the Nimzo...3.Nf3 is for pansies.  

6..e5 and 6..d5 look like the most played in databases, but e5 looks more menacing since ng8 is probably recommended huh?

I mean 6.e5 and 6.d5 by white, sorry.

This looks like a very intriguing line, but what is your opinion of the 4..Nc6 line? I saw Dzindzi's lesson on it, which was very convenient because it is what I play currently, and it seems like I very reliable system, its just that I haven't been playing it with a5 ever, which looks like a really important idea now looking at it again.

I'll assume Pfrens lines are home analysis since the e5 line from the black side has only been played once...

5...c5 is an old main line - Petrosian used to do it in this position, but white should leave the pawn alone - not create *triple isolated* pawns, what is this guy doing!? Obviously you don't want to take on d4 and fix white's problem - Watson gives 5...c5 6.e3 O-O 7.Bd3 Nc6 8.Ne2 b6 (with ...Ba6 and ...Ne8 to follow in some order), and black is doing well. 

Be3 and Nf3 are nothing short of outlandish from a book perspective, so you've started in a Nimzo Indian and gone to something that really doesn't look like a Nimzo at all from white's perspective - you respond correctly by exploiting the e4 square which white horribly mismanaged and nabbing one of the sitting-duck-pawns.

Maybe 12...e5 wasn't the best - it creates some loose pawns, and, even though ...e4 could be a major break for black, I feel like the knight sits so well and so naturally on the e4 square that there's no need to spend the time and weaken your structure to put a pawn there. If you look at the position after 12...Ne4, you have the best minor piece on the board and are a pawn up with a better structure - no comp for white. 12....Na5 also puts the clamp on a weak pawn while letting you get the thematic fianchetto of you QB. All in all, I feel like you could have done better there....because you're simply better.

Maybe 13...Qf7 would be good - you're poking that loose c4 pawn and putting more pressure on the f file (you wanted to play ...f4 anyway). Bg5 is a thorn in your side, exploiting the absence of your lost bishop.

At 14...Ne6, you're pulling your best attacker back into a passive position - kicking out that oppressive bishop, but now the knight has no good squares except for c5....which is where it already was! I feel you losing control of the position - white leaves behind two loose pawns as though they aren't weaknesses, and you're too busy to put pressure on them. By 16.Rd6, you're probably worse!

Lucky you, white makes a HUGE mistake in miscounting the material on the d7 pawn, and you're able to dig out, win a ton of material, and skip through a field of lollypops to an easy win, but there was probably a way for you to keep the initiative much earlier in the game and not have to suffer through the defense process. 

From a book perspective, you did all of the right things in the opening, and your opponent did all of the wrong things, so I'd take that as a feather for my cap and keep working with it. Mainly, two things come to mind here (1) The e4 square is the major contest in the Nimzo - if you can establish a knight there, don't let it go! Ride that pony to victory if you can. (2) The structural damage is what you get for the bishop pair in the Saemisch variation (3.a3) - keep your eye on a2, c3, and c4 at all times! Don't ever let white forget that (s)he has an inferior pawn structure, even if (s)he's trying to attack you. 

Related to the game posted by Xplayerjx,

Maybe taking a look at the position after 15...b6 is worth it. Could be White's concentrating too much on the d-file isn't the best plan. Generally with the 2 B's you might want to concentrate on diagonals and opening up the position.

Just taking a quick look it looks like the White squares near the Black King are worthy of consideration. Usually in the Nimzo the h7 diagonal is especially fruitful.

Maybe something like  Nh4 then Bd5 will put enough pressure on Black's Kside. Though Black's ...f4 is a pain . It opens up the position which is good but carries a lot of initiative. Maybe Bc1 then a4 planning Ba3 needs to come first. I don't think Black's got enough to mount anything but he would have to worry about the light and dark diagonals.

Playing the diagonals might've been one idea for White could've considered.

@Pfren: The big idea is 5.e4 c5! 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Bb7 8.Bd3 b5!, which is mighty OK for Black, and as a bonus, wrongly analysed by Gustafsson in his recent Qc2 DVD.

You mean 10. ... bxc4 ?

Which variation would you suggest if you're playing for a win?

Also why isn't this variation more played? It seems playable and interesting but it's hardly been played compared to others.

Interesting question .. did Gusti make the mistake on purpose since he plays the same system with black or did he just miss it ;)

 [...]"4.e3, and proceed the oldfashioned way- Bd3, Nf3 etc. I think the fashionable 4.e3 0-0 5.Nge2 lines give white nothing."

So the argument for simple development here is: 4...O-O 5.a3 (or 5.Bd3 c5 6.a3) just transposes to the Saemisch (wobbly for white) and 5.Nge2 misplaces the knight. What about the 4.e3, f3, e4 idea? Just another transposition?

There is no easy system against the nimzo that gives white an advantage. The best you can get is an equal position in a setup you like. 

While I agree with Pfren that the system with Nge2 does not lead to an advantage it does lead to fairly fresh positions where white has a clear plan. I faced it on the board once or twice and it is not easy to play for an unprepared black player. 

i don't play the nimzo-indian (lol people), but good topic!

5...Be7!? is playable, but the problem is with his extra tempo, White can stake a claim in the center with 6 e4 and 6...de 7 fe e5 8 d5, while playable, is I think somewhat better for White

Maybe it's not right but I always like 4...c5 against White's 4. e3. It could reduce any worries about White's f3, e4 plans as ...cxd4 is likely. For. 5. Ne2, 5...cxd4 is also a consideration.

With 5. Bd3 I like to try the Hubner setup with ...Nc6 , ...Bxc3 and ...d6 trying to lock the center with an ...e5. I'm not up on current theory so maybe the computers have busted the line by now but in my club play it usually seemed to equalize enough.

Though I think I remember a Larsen game in the early 70's in the Philippines, I believe against Ivkov,  that might of been a Hubner where Larsen crushed it pretty good. I'm guessing I thought there was an improvement because I'm still playing it but the game might be worth checking out anyway if interested. 

Play Qc2 AND f3 and get the best of both worlds.