The Nimzo-Indian Thread

One of the earliest known players of the unique 3... Bb4 move (which didn't yet have a name) was the British master Joseph Blackburne, one of the top players in the world in the late 1800s. Blackburne was known among players as the "Black Death", due to how dominating and ruthless his play was.

But it wasn't until the 1920s that Aron Nimzowitsch came along and made 3... Bb4 his trademark, cementing the "Nimzo-Indian Defense" as a permanent cornerstone in chess theory and history. His idea was simple but revolutionary: attack the center with pieces, instead of occupying it with pawns - a big departure from the Classical way of thinking at the time.

According to Nimzowitsch, the point of the bishop move wasn't simply to pin the knight - it was actually meant to indirectly fight for control of the e4 square. The birth of Hypermodernism.

Since then, the Nimzo-Indian has been a favorite of World Champions such as Capablanca, Kasparov, and Carlsen. In fact, it would probably be hard to find a single World Champion who hasn't studied and played the Nimzo-Indian, at some point.

So ... where do you stand on the Nimzo? Do you enjoy it as Black, and have a favorite variation? Hate it as White, and employ different moves to avoid it? Or do you know little about it, and would like to learn more?

Let's talk about the Nimzo ...

It's good but, due to the early complications with the bishop, there are so many more 4th moves white can respond with, which you wouldn't typically see otherwise - a3, Qb3, Qc2, Bd2, f3... and different combinations of these moves as well. It ends up being a very broad move tree... in addition it's also such a critical line, and people study it relentlessly. White has alot of choice in where the game goes. So I'm afraid it's just too much theory for me to go for. However... besides that it gives black great initiative, it plays very naturally, and it's a great line. And black has many options too, so that kind of makes up for things... kind of. I wouldn't really want to play such a theoretical line intuitively when my opponent is steering the game, though.

Also the thing it naturally pairs with, the QID, has a similar problem - huge amount of theory due to ceding the center.

Maybe if I was a pro chess player I wouldn't mind these things.

The other thing is I really like the English Attack against d4/c4, I think I'd just choose it over the nimzo.

The problem I have with it is that both black and white has so many options that it simply does not make sence to play it from either side at club-level in my opinion. As white I would recommend to avoid it by starting with Nf3, and with black I would probably go for a more forcing defence. With that said, there is no disputing the solidity of the defence. It is well respected in top level chess.

All the points above are valid, but a case can be made that for these very reasons playing the Nimzo with both colors is a good way to develop as a player. You will meet a wide set of pawn structures, there are so many possibilities you can't learn everything move by move so you have to rely on your general chess understanding to find your way through. Some positions of the Nimzo look like the Queen's Gambit, some like the Benoni, there are Dutch setups and you get a lot of those e3-d4-c4 vs e6-d5-c5 centers which happen in different 1. d4 openings. Since the opening doesn't have that distinct flavour some others have, there is no psychological problem with playing it for both sides and you gain knowledge that is also useful to play almost any 1. d4 opening.

I love it with both colours. Can be extremely sharp or slow and positional.

But I will advice anybody to learn the Queen's Gambit with both colours first, as there are lots of transpositions to QG.

There are some very fun and pretty tactics that can come from that NID/QID combo with an early ...f5, for sure.

Lately I've been liking a simplified system of the NID, where Black puts his pawns on d6 + e5. It's as basic as it sounds: Black gets his bishop "out", then closes the center by putting his pawns on dark squares. When the dark bishop gets exchanged away, ideally it will come at a cost to White: making him adopt a defensive posture to avoid doubling pawns ... or simply doubling his pawns.

GM Jesse Kraai calls this "The Flamingo" defense ... an unusual moniker that I believe he simply made up. If anyone is interested, he explains the simple ideas here:

I find this approach much easier to understand than the early ...c5 lines, where Black sometimes has to go through awkward contortions to avoid hanging things or to avoid allowing long-term pawn weaknesses.

I also don't particularly love the ...d5 variations, as they just feel (to me) like a QGD where the bishop is misplaced. I know that's not an accurate description of things, but after coming from a few years of having a QGD repertoire with ...Be7, going into a ...d5 structure with the bishop on b4 just feels ... off to me.

Overall, I find the NID quite fascinating. It's one of my two go-to defenses to look at with an engine while exploring different lines: the NID, and the Najdorf.