play the nimzo indian and know what to do against 4.e3, Qc2, and Nf3 and if 3.Nf3 play the blumenfeld Gambit 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 b5
Repertoire Expansion #1: Meeting 1.d4
Sort:
I believe the Nimzo is prolly the single best black opening ever. It's sound positionally and tactically, can lead to a host of different positions, creates imbalances from the beginning, no forced draws, lots of theory and yet little need of memorization. You can play it almost completely off principles. (though admittedly in some of the blocked positions it helps to know certain move orders and general plans).
The problem with the Nimzo is that White can avoid it, both with 3.Nf3, generally leading to a QID or Bogo-Indian, and also by 2.Nf3 or 2.Bf4. This last two is actually a big problem at amateur level, because it seems the majority of 1.d4 players here play the Colle or London against everything, and the Nimzo doesn't work against this by definition.
Practically, then, learning the Nimzo also means learning the QID/Bogo and something against the omnipresent Londons and Colles. That's three times the amount of work. If you're fine with that, coolio, have fun. If you want to have a life outside of opening theory, I suppose the Classical Slav is the easiest choice. You play d5, c6, Nf6 and Bf5 almost regardless of what White does. It's sound, it's simple ... it might get a little repetitive, but for ease of study and reliability it can't really be beat.
Apr 30, 2017
0
#4
StupidGM wrote:
SmithyQ wrote:
I believe the Nimzo is prolly the single best black opening ever. It's sound positionally and tactically, can lead to a host of different positions, creates imbalances from the beginning, no forced draws, lots of theory and yet little need of memorization. You can play it almost completely off principles. (though admittedly in some of the blocked positions it helps to know certain move orders and general plans).
The problem with the Nimzo is that White can avoid it, both with 3.Nf3, generally leading to a QID or Bogo-Indian, and also by 2.Nf3 or 2.Bf4. This last two is actually a big problem at amateur level, because it seems the majority of 1.d4 players here play the Colle or London against everything, and the Nimzo doesn't work against this by definition.
Practically, then, learning the Nimzo also means learning the QID/Bogo and something against the omnipresent Londons and Colles. That's three times the amount of work. If you're fine with that, coolio, have fun. If you want to have a life outside of opening theory, I suppose the Classical Slav is the easiest choice. You play d5, c6, Nf6 and Bf5 almost regardless of what White does. It's sound, it's simple ... it might get a little repetitive, but for ease of study and reliability it can't really be beat.
Not fond of the Nimzo, as it wastes energy and gives White the Bishop pair.
And here is where your ignorance shows. Not all lines lead to the bishop pair for White. Many lines Black retreats to d6 or e7 or in the case of the Leningrad, both sides part with their DSB!
This is my favorite response to 1.d4
Foreword: for what it's worth, my ICU rating is 1507, and I have no idea how that translates to a FIDE or any other rating! I'm useful, but have plenty of room to improve, and now that my studies are out of the way I plan on becoming more serious about my over-the-board chess. As such, I'm looking to expand my repertoire over the summer, and on the black side I'm looking for an alternative to my beloved King's Indian Defence. Specifically, I am considering the following:
I'd love to hear the thoughts of people who know and play these openings regularly, and what they feel the pros and cons are to playing a specific opening. My own thoughts are as follows:
On the Classical QGD...
I feel it's a good idea to play some classical lines, by which I infer lines stemming from 1.e4 e5, and from 1.d4 d5. My regular response to 1.d4 is to play Nf6 and angle for a King's Indian Defence, so having the classical Queen's Gambit as an alternative seems to make sense to me, in order to further develop my understanding of the game. I actually know very little about Queen's Gambit positions, though: I'm aware that the light-square bishop can be a pain in the ass to develop, and that I'd better get the hang of playing isolated queen pawn positions, but neither of those need be a bad thing.
Questions:
On the Slav and Semi-Slav...
To me, this is simply another way to play classical queen pawn structures, though I wonder if it isn't incorrect to say that they are slightly less classical ways of handling the queen's pawn. Like the QGD, these would be a way for me to broaden my in-depth knowledge of openings vs. d4, and again, I know very little of the structures and positions that arise from either of these openings. I do have it in my head that there can be some excellent opportunities for counter-attacking chess, and I do know for sure that you can get some absolutely crazy positions if black is allowed to take on c4 protect it with b5.
Questions:
On the Nimzo-Indian Defence...
So here I would obviously not be getting into 1.d4 d5 territory, but on the other hand, the Nimzo is the most respected response to 1.d4 right now, and may well give black the best winning chances. That is obviously quite appealing, but I do feel that in taking on the Nimzo, one also has to take on the QID; as I understand it, it seems that the Nimzo is so well-respected these days that many white players seek to avoid it altogether by playing 3. Nf3, after which black's best option—I believe—is thought to be 3... b3 and a switch to the Queen's Indian. Now I'm not necessarily one for always playing the "best" openings (I ventured the King's Gambit in my most recent OTB game), but if playing the best is the motivation behind playing the Nimzo, then it follows that I should play the QID if the position demands it, right? Of course I could always play 3... Bb4+ anyway, but then I'm not really staying in the Nimzo, I'm going into the Bogo-Indian—again, a second opening.
Questions: