FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
You know how loathe I am to agree with Lyudmil about anything, but...
"Indian" was used as a slightly derogatory term for the fianchetto defenses. The Grunfeld is often referred to as the Grunfeld Indian. Peter Svidler, one of the premier practitioners of the opening has used both terms to describe it.
From a purely historical perspective, Lyudmil is actually correct, the Nimzo-Indian is *less* of an Indian defense than the Grunfeld, which is a hybrid of the QGD and King's Indian.
But in English, the Nimzo-Indian is considered an Indian even tho it bears almost no strategic similarities to other Indians.
Your objection is a technicality and ignores the essence.
The term Indian used to determine the hypermodern defenses that temporarily surrender the centre. Does Nimzo Indian has this characteristic. Yes it does ,
Do we have all the characteristics of an Indian defense in the above position?
Obviously we do.
The problem with Nimzo Indian is that many times Black directly attacks with d5 and c5 but the spirit of the opening and Nimzowich's initial thought was to battle for the centre with the pieces. So it is a hypermodern defense either you call it Indian or not.
Old Indian defense has a lot of similarities with Philidor ,Queen's Indian defense has strategic similarities with Dutch ,Tartakower's defense has strategic similarities with Queen's Indian, English has strategic similarities with Sicilian etc.
You will find strategic similarities everywhere in chess as everything is interconnected.
Strategic similarities though mean nothing for the nature of the opening and I am surprised you are incapable of understanding that on your own. That is why English is not a semi open defense , Tartakower's is not an Indian defense and Queen's Indian is not Dutch.
As for the term Grunfeld Indian I have never seen it in any book and I have more than15 that mention Grunfeld. Do you have even one that uses the term Grunfeld Indian?
Give me the title and the author.
@Deirdre, I'm on my phone right now, away from my library. But try "Beating the Indian Defenses".
Btw, chess players are inherently and notoriously lazy. There's no reason to call the Grunfeld by a longer name. There's only one Grunfeld opening that is well known. The Nimzo-Indian differentiates from other Nimzo openings.
Btw, in Russian, the Queen's Indian is also known as the Novo (New) Indian opening.
Chess.com calls 1.d4 Nc6 as Mikena's defense. Is that what you're referring to?
The 1. .. Nc6 system is usually called the Nimzowitsch Defense (Chess.com's opening explorer correctly identifies it with 1. e4 Nc6). 1. d4 Nc6 often transposes back into the mainline after 2. e4, but if white doesn't like that line, he can also transpose it into some other lines (QGD, for example). Like 1. Nf3, it is not an "opening" in and of itself, but rather a way to transpose into an opening system you want to play without taking a direct route.
1.d4 nc6 2.d5 transposes into what? 1.d4 nc6 2.c4 e5 (esp after 3.d5 bb4+) transposes into what exactly? i think you are not creditingsome of these openings their independent value
1.d4 nc6 2.d5 transposes into what? 1.d4 nc6 2.c4 e5 (esp after 3.d5 bb4+) transposes into what exactly? i think you are not crediting some of these openings their independent value
Fair point. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it often transposes.