Nimzowich-Larsen

I'm looking into getting into this opening, b3. do you guys think this is a good opening, I'm hoping to play games against people who aren't familiar ith it. Have you used it, and if so, did you have any success? Any tips would be greatly appreciated.

I wouldn't play it if I were you. Not now, anyway.  There's nothing especially wrong with the Nimzo-Larsen; I just think you'd be better off opening with 1.e4 at your level.  Then against the main replies to 1.e4, play lines that will get your pieces into the game quickly and teach you to make use of the initiative.  Against 1...e5, maybe play the King's Gambit.  Against 1...c5, perhaps the Smith Morra Gambit.  Against 1...c6, maybe go for the Fantasy Variation.  Against 1...e6, you could play the Exchange variation(a simple enough solution at your level), and against 1...d5, you could transpose to the Blackmar Diemer Gambit with 2. d4(then if they transposed that to the French by playing 2...e6, just play the Exchange again.)

I haven't played it in-depth, just a few rounds in skittles games. Though I myself am a mediocre player, Bent Larsen certainly has a few games that could be examined. I think Bobby Fischer does as well; 1.b3 is a bit offbeat, but completely playable.

I was looking for something offbeat so people wouldn't know what I was doing, you know, catch them by suprise.

You would recommend for someone at his "level" to NOT play the Nimzovich Larsen Attack, yet you would have them play the King's Gambit and the Blackmar Deimer Gambit? That is nonsense.

Honestly, my advice would be to study tactics, because they will prophet you more. 

But if you want opening advice, I don't see anything wrong with playing what you want to play. Find something you are comfortable with.

The good thing about an opening like 1. b3 is that you don't have to learn a whole load of theory - just the main plans and a few moves into a few lines, so it probably is a good one for you to look at.

It's a solid opening - one I am currently investigating. Go for it and stick with it for a while until you get familiar with the sorts of middle games you get with it.

The Nimzo-Larson will surprise some people, but then again, attacking someone with multiple pieces because you have quicker development or more effective open files or diagonals or better pawns in the center that you may have obtained by gambiting a pawn or two or exchanging a pawn or two (as often occurs in those nonsensical classical openings) can be a surprise for some people, too.

Like I said, there's really nothing wrong with the Nimzo-Larsen.  I just think it would probably be easier to learn and play if you took it up later in your chess career.  Nothing wrong with giving the N-L a try though--you might have an affinity for it.