Nimzo Indian

. d4-e6, 2. c4-nf6, 3. nc6-Bb4, 4. Pe3 - 0-0 5. Bd3 Pd5

I had a bit of a problem with openings before. I used to play quite a lot, rated in the mid to high 1800's, but that was 20+ years ago, (anyone remember the notation KP KP4? lol) and the new openings were killing me.

I needed something between Kings Indian, which was too passive, and the gambits, which call for sacrifices or sharp play early in the game.

Nimzo Indian is that compromise. I get more space, I can give white the horrible problem of doubled pawns after BxN, PxB, and with 5 ... pd5, I'm on the attack!

The problem is that White players don't really like the opening and can take you out of it pretty easily. 2. e4 is the one I run into most often. I play d5 and move to French, but i'd rather another option. I've been looking at 2. ... d6, but results have been mixed. Even in games I've won, I've the feeling I won despite the opening.

So, 1. d4 e6 2. e4 ?

No gambits please, and an alternative to the French defense, if there is one

@thaxiss-I myself am a Nimzo-Indian player and play 1.d4 Nf6 after which you would not face the problem of 2.e4.The position will transpose into the Nimzo-Indian mainline after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4. 

I never even considered that. Thanx, Mishrashubham, that looks like a winner!

1...e6 isn't bad at all, and something of a favorite with me. After 1...e6 2c4 can play 2...Bb4ch 3Nc3 c5 with a nimzo styled position were the popular Qc2 avoiding doubled pawns isn't possible. It also avoids 1.d4 Nf6 2Bg5 were white very often gives up bishop pair himself to damage pawn structure.

If french isn't your defence to 1.e4 though, it is giving you unnecessary extra work. 

I had the first 2 moves switched around, i guess. Or the dude I learned the opening from on youtube did. Which ever, I'm happy to have it fixed now.

Nimzo Indian is really my thing, I started winning with it almost immediately. It's almost instinctual.

I'm not uncomfortable with the French opening, infact, I play it with confidence if white opens with e4. But I get better results with Nimzo, so would prefer that one.

The thing you are going to run into is people declining to go into the Nimzo Indian by not playing 3. Nc3, but you have some options anyways, for instance playing 3...Bc4 anyways and going into the Bogo-Indian. Roman has a great video series on the Nimzo and a great one on the Bogo if you ever decide to upgrade your account.

Calm down a bit, man. I mean it's working for me at my current limited level of play, not that I'm suddenly unbeatable.

I think he feels that you were a bit nasty to me. I thought so too, but let it go. Piece pushers like me can want to get better too, you know, and talking about progress is no reason to get dumped on.

Your comment was out of line and you deserved a bit of comeuppance.

That some words dont translate well culturally and as a non-native speaker you might try to understand the concepts Pfren is trying to relate instead of taking offense. The word dumb is insulting in American english but there are some words that dont translate easily. I think that a better way to describe  might have been ignorant and naive about the nimzo. The nizmo has some very clear ideas and where the pieces go is fairly straight foward BUT the position is VERY difficult to play well. 

First your idea that the king's indian is too passive is well just wrong. My problem with it is that its too double edged Black is just going head hunting on the kingside while white tries to break through on the queenside. Black's attacks are usually a lot of fun but too nerve wracking for me. I dont understand why you dont just play the nimzo/queens indian complex as black. Your move order choice with e6 leaves you open to a variety of move orders that you might not like. 

Play 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 and see what happens you can play either the nimzo or queen's indian. 

It really should be obvious to anyone, given my very low rating, that I'm not speaking as an expert, or giving expert analysis.

Obviously I'm not playing the Kings Indian properly, I'm not really playing ANYTHING properly yet.

I've a lot of work still to do if I'm even going to come close to my earlier success, and you can bet I'd give your suggestion a shot, except I'm already working with it at Mish's suggestion.

No, pfren, I don't. In fact I'm ashamed of myself. Not that I agree with your conduct, but it doesn't excuse mine.

So I apologize for talking to you like that.

Bankwell Hates chessplayers with symbols in front of their names like IM , NM. This guy used to go after REB like nobody's buisness !   

Ok so thaxiss how do you plan to change your lack of knowledge?

My advice is get a book on the nimzo and work through it

at your level I think the book essential chess openings is a great start You can read about a ton of openings and their plans and start building a base

a great capablanca book is Capablanca's Best endgames by Chernev.

He looks at 60 games from start to finish with light notes (not computer checked but good notes) and breaks it in half when the endgame occurs so you can see the logical progression of the game

Another book I would suggest is Logical chess move by move by Chernev

Its about a thought process and simple to understand with out a lot of distraction

The motivation was that I felt you mistreated me. If you did, you were wrong. If that wasn't your intention, then there was a misunderstanding.

Any way, it's over now.

I'm off to the movies with my woman, then tomorrow I'll hit the book store.  There's some good stuff on youtube from this site as well, I can check that out.

Karpov is similar to Capablanca just a more refined and modern version. 

There is a line of players that have similar styles and learning them in chronological order helps players see things unfold in an incremental way.

Capablanca - Smyslov - Petrosian - Karpov - Kramnik - Carlsen

I am sure there are other masters that are similar that didnt reach the top  and would fit into this positional mold. 

I like Chernevs books on capablanca because they are a good introduction and 'fun' to read with out overwhelming someone on variations. Chess stars also has a good book on Capablanca too I  believe. (they did one on a lot of masters) There are also some chessbase CDs on Capablanca as well.

Smyslov did a book of his own games,... great book and he is a better writer imo than karpov

Petrosian has two books Tigan Petrosian by vasiliev an Petrosian's legacy by Petrosian. Petrosian had an image as a boring player. You might want to check out his games. He had a sleeping bear mentality, poke him and he bit back,... hard. The second one is great from a historical point of view too.

Karpov did a book of his on his own games - great book but karpov annotations are,... lackluster at times how does a genius explain himself? Kramnik has said that this was his "bible" in his early years of chess development.

There are some recent books that are quite good,
Kapovs strategical wins" that are great

Kramnik did one too of his own games. He is a LOT More dynamic than people think. The book was from his more aggressive phase before the kasparov match toned him down.

Magnus is too young to really have a book of his best games yet  when he still has at least another decade+ to improve (shocking huh) but there are some game collections of his around that include his games that have good reviews Everyman published one about Classical masters or something I believe.

From an early teaching perspective I would start with Capablanca and smyslov. They are easier to wrap your head around since they often outplayed their opponents with ideas that were strongly executed . as opposition got wise of these plans future generations of players didnt allow these plans and they had to dance around more to get an advantage.