Why would someone not play the Nimzo-Indian?

I always play dubious stuff. 1.e4 suits that particular personality defect.

yes, except that e4 is better than d4.

Chess legend "Bobby Fischer " said that the King's Pawn Game is "Best by test."

easy, because i don't like d4, i would rather play e4, and though i ocationally play d4, e4 i like better. Some like d4 some like e4 some like c4 some like nf3 who cares what the engines think?

Thanks for your helpful response.  How much of a problem does White's two Bishop advantage typically pose to Black in the Nimzo-Indian?

About 1.d4 :

Santasiere said, "It is a piece of dead flesh kept over long on ice .... more the tool of a coward than an adventurer."

And here is a quite from Ken Smith:

In characterizing realities no less than in taking positions on issues, consciousness generalizes, i.e. genericizes:  in articulating or formulating, it reduces things, even our own selves, to forms, abstractions, idealizations, types, archetypes, simplisms.  “Thinking” is an activity that ultimately grounds or resolves itself in the satisfying, self-certain form of orthodoxies, preconceptions, uncriticized and imperative norms; and it is overwhelmingly inept to recognize just how pathetic, parasitic or placental is its relation to its “own” fundamental norms of understanding and valuation.  Rarely if ever does any act of thinking grow so laserlike or iconoclastically intensive as to escape from the dense miasma of what is acceptable.  To think what actually is is even more contranatural for humans than to see what actually is:  as subjectivizing as “seeing” is, “thinking” is many degrees or magnitudes more saturated with conditioned biases, delusions, self-deceptions.  A program of hygiene or asepsis for the sanity, acuity and clarity of syncretic or wholesided thinking—a discipline of orthotics for sobering, grounding and polemicizing of well-formed gnoseonoesis—is needless to say unknown in modernity.  Not just language but virtually all of intellect, education, culture, etc. have been adapted into utilities, tools whose very aspectivity militates against the nakedness of “evidence,” which is to say, against candor and against truth:  regardless of what it may be called, “evidence,” even the most obvious and blatant, is in actuality not so “evident” to most people, and the modern development of “sophistication” or “education” typically worsens the obscurantism."

tl;dr - Ken Smith thinks you should play gambit from time to time.

you play the opening you like the most

Its matter of personal taste. I always play d4 with white and Nimzo Indian against d4 as black. But not many like to play nimzo. Like all other defense if you played it lot then it is rock solid. IMO

Also I dont agree some say here that Nimzo gives inferior position. When it is played by Carlsen and Kasparov as black then it got to be top class (end of story).

That's a very good point. Nimzowitch himself called his opening the improved Queen's Gambit declined. On chess com, in vote chess games especially, see that people keen on the nimzo have no clue about the principals behind the more straightforward Queens Gambit. How they expect to be able to play the more complicated improved opening well is beyond me.

Neither am I. But neither are my usual opponents !

What garbage.

Free chess lesson, and worth every penny!

To much theory, and to much memorization...

If you want to play the QGD though, you either have to learn the nimzo or find some major improvements on the exchange variation, which typically favors white (the point of learning the nimzo is that after 3. Nf3 d5 the exchange loses most of its effect).