What's the best way to play against 7. d5 in the Nimzo-Indian?
Sort:
Something like 7. d5 exd5 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. Bxh7+ Kxh7 10. Qxd5 Kg8 11. 0-0 Bxc3 12. bxc3 d6 13. e4 Be6 14. Qh5 f6 with a good control of the dark squares must be ok for Black. But it's hard to see the benefit of playing 6... Nc6 over 6... d5 which is strangely enough more flexible (Black can hold the center, go for the Main variation or the Khasin, play cxd4 cxd4 dxc4, or Nbd7...). Also, if Black intends to play a Hübner structure it should start with 4... c5 rather than 4... 0-0.
Jan 1, 2021
0
#3
Just capture the d5 pawn with your e pawn. If he captures back with his c pawn, capture again with your knight as his knight is pinned. If he defends the knight just do d pawn takes c pawn and you’re up a pawn.
Jan 1, 2021
0
#4
Not being one that has played this line (usually played 4...b6 or 4...c5 against 4.e3), doesn't Black usually play 6...d5 here as opposed to 6...Nc6? Or maybe even 5...d5 and 6...c5? I want to say trading occurs twice by Black, White taking with the pawn on d4 and the Bishop on c4 (going to a2 or e2 later - move 11 maybe?), and then a3 by White and a trade on c3, giving White the structure a3-c3-d4-f2-g2-h2? Or am I missing something?
4 .... 0-0 is listed as the Hubner Main Line in IM Christof Sielecki's book. In the databases I looked at, it seems to score just slightly (~0-2%) better for Black with either a higher win % for Black or a higher draw %, if not both.
SF seems to like it more as well (at absolute best maybe a 1/5 pawn advantage over 4 ... c5), although it may also depend on where I stop the analysis.
I mean it's obviously playable but not a position to get too excited about given some of the obvious weaknesses for Black even though, objectively, the position is almost certainly equal.
Samurai-X a écrit :
4 .... 0-0 is listed as the Hubner Main Line in IM Christof Sielecki's book. In the databases I looked at, it seems to score just slightly (~0-2%) better for Black with either a higher win % for Black or a higher draw %, if not both.
SF seems to like it more as well (at absolute best maybe a 1/5 pawn advantage over 4 ... c5), although it may also depend on where I stop the analysis.
That's mainly because 4. e3 c5 5. Ne2 scores better for White than 4. e3 0-0 5. Ne2. The trouble is, 4... c5 was the traditional way of reaching the Hübner and players used to delay castling for both sides as much as they could (in the WC Spassky - Fischer game, both players castled only at move 15).
As for books I still remember Carsten Hansen making a complete mess with the c5/d5/0-0 move orders...
Jan 2, 2021
0
#8
As mentioned it is quite a peculiar question because if the OP is happy with Hubner variation, as should be playing this move order, will get one after 7...BxNch 8pxp Ne7 9.0.0 d6 10e4 e5.
Whilst if at all concerned about 7d5 could have played 6...d5 instead of 6...Nc6.
7... Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 Ne7 9. d6 is annoying. Black must be ok after 9... Nc6, but White will get the opportunity to create something before the d6 pawn disappears.
Jan 2, 2021
0
#11
Kasparov didn't seem too concerned with 8d6 possibility, after 7...Ne7, in game against Ponomariov, and Ponomariov later played same position as black.