While we are on the subject we should maybe have a look at whites other option 3.e4 the Norfolk gambit which is in effect a reverse budapest with b3 thrown in. Now we all know the budapest is tricky if white does not know what he is doing, so it follows that a reverse Budapest with b3 thrown in will be tricky for black and chances are he will not even have heard of it, yet alone know any lines.
Carlsen destroyed Anand with it, admittedly only blitz but it is quite instructive
Hey, Yuree, I'll not criticize these statements only cuz U seem to be a huge fan of Botvinnik.
Yigor, I am not a huge fan of Botvinnik but my friend who is a fide master is. I am a fan of Alekhine and Chigorin and Shirov, and Kasparov
Hey, Yuree, I'll not criticize these statements only cuz U seem to be a huge fan of Botvinnik.
Yigor, I am not a huge fan of Botvinnik but my friend who is a fide master is. I am a fan of Alekhine and Chigorin and Shirov, and Kasparov
All right, cool. 
Apparenty Bobby trusted Botvinnik's judgement:
White's most challenging reply to 3...f6 is probably an old suggestion by Keene: 4.e4!? dxe4 5.Nh4 Nh6 6.Nc3! with interesting play.
Are you crazy? If 5. Nh4, then 5 ... g5! and white loses the knight that has nowhere to go from Nh4.
Played a game just now that shows how easy it can be against an unprepared opponent. It easy play for white in the c5 d5 lines. Bb5 swap off stick Knight on e5 play f4 swing Queen / rook to kingside job done. Obviously blacks play was not great, it surprising how many 1800-2000 players do not have much idea in this line.
Objectively black is fine but in practice white has an easy and clear plan, which is half the battle.
I played the Nimzo-larsen as white 3 times on a tournament this weekend (state federation), and I won the 3 games as white. Also I noticed one move I do very differently than you.
11. Qe1 Nd7, in my oppinion, is worse than 11. Nd2 Nd7 followed by 12. Nf3, which avoids the double pawns and makes both knights near the attacking lines.
Played a game just now that shows how easy it can be against an unprepared opponent. It easy play for white in the c5 d5 lines. Bb5 swap off stick Knight on e5 play f4 swing Queen / rook to kingside job done. Obviously blacks play was not great, it surprising how many 1800-2000 players do not have much idea in this line.
Objectively black is fine but in practice white has an easy and clear plan, which is half the battle.
I played the Nimzo-larsen as white 3 times on a tournament this weekend (state federation), and I won the 3 games as white. Also I noticed one move I do very differently than you.
11. Qe1 Nd7, in my oppinion, is worse than 11. Nd2 Nd7 followed by 12. Nf3, which avoids the double pawns and makes both knights near the attacking lines.
Yes your move probably is better at least it develops the last piece before commencing operations
Apparenty Bobby trusted Botvinnik's judgement:
White's most challenging reply to 3...f6 is probably an old suggestion by Keene: 4.e4!? dxe4 5.Nh4 Nh6 6.Nc3! with interesting play.
Are you crazy? If 5. Nh4, then 5 ... g5! and white loses the knight that has nowhere to go from Nh4.
Nope, 5...g5?? would be a blunder cuz of 6. Qh5+ followed by 7. Ng6! 
But after 5. Nh4 Nh6 6. Nc3 Qd4 white are bad anyway. So 4. e4?, proposed by Keene as IM pfren said, is a mistake. Good moves: 4. d4, 4. Bb2 and 4. Bb5+. 
Your 3.e3 f6 4.e4 is just a stupid move- and totally unneeded, since white can play 4.d4 and take back with a pawn if Black takes on d4, when the f6 pawn is silly-looking.
It's U who argued, following Botvinnik, that 3. e3 is better than 3. Bb2 (since it's supposed to cut out some black's options). Then U misleaded everyone since your Keene's variation with 3. Bb2 and 4. e4 disproves Botvinnik-Fischer's 3...f6 and Botvinnik's claim as well. Yes, e3 followed by e4 looks silly but such moves happen sometimes, so I checked it. Well, please try to be precise in your statements instead of boosting your ego in each post. 
I'm afraid your understanding is close to zero, and I do not know which to blame for that.
LMAO How condescending from your highness! I take it as a compliment. Please don't blame anyone.
Apparenty Bobby trusted Botvinnik's judgement:
White's most challenging reply to 3...f6 is probably an old suggestion by Keene: 4.e4!? dxe4 5.Nh4 Nh6 6.Nc3! with interesting play.
Are you crazy? If 5. Nh4, then 5 ... g5! and white loses the knight that has nowhere to go from Nh4.
Nope, 5...g5?? would be a blunder cuz of 6. Qh5+ followed by 7. Ng6!
But after 5. Nh4 Nh6 6. Nc3 Qd4 white are bad anyway. So 4. e4?, proposed by Keene as IM pfren said, is a mistake. Good moves: 4. d4, 4. Bb2 and 4. Bb5+.
No clue who would play ...g5 in that position. Black's up a pawn and white has no compensation at all, just a terrible position.
Also, I think 4.d4 is the only good move after ...f6. Maybe Bb5+, but definitely not Bb2.
Also, the reason white would want to play 1.b3 in the first place is to get an easy system to play, not one where he/she has to think about theory moves in the opening. It's best to just go for the common lines here.
Most of the literature, books, and resources on this start with 1.b3. I far prefer the 1.Nf3 version, then moving onto b3, Bb2, and the rest. Anyone know of any really good resources or books that focus predominately on 1.Nf3?
Most of the literature, books, and resources on this start with 1.b3. I far prefer the 1.Nf3 version, then moving onto b3, Bb2, and the rest. Anyone know of any really good resources or books that focus predominately on 1.Nf3?
No, not really, there are plenty of transpositions to 1.b3 lines, although most of my own games tend to transpose to the Agincourt variation of the Eniglish instead. Chess publishing have a fair bit on it, but really I find not much is needed except common sense when playing the Nf3 move order as there no real sharp stuff where variations need to be learnt, you can just get by using the explorer on here
hahaha, funny gambit. Would try that in bullet.
hahaha, funny gambit. Would try that in bullet.
And this is why I think people who say "You shouldn't study openings until you're around 1800-2000" are full of shit. There are so many minefields, traps, and ways to go wrong in the first 8 moves of a game that without reasonable opening knowledge, you wont' see the middlegame to use all the strategy and and positional knowledge you've worked so hard on.
hahaha, funny gambit. Would try that in bullet.
And this is why I think people who say "You shouldn't study openings until you're around 1800-2000" are full of shit.
It's always good to learn something.
Hey, Yuree, I'll not criticize these statements only cuz U seem to be a huge fan of Botvinnik.