FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
unlike the kings indian and queens indian, the nimzo indian does not use a fianchetto and doesnt seem to have the same style. Is it really indian???
By definition, it is not considered an Indian opening, although it does follow several of the same concepts. According to IM John Watson, although it is not Indian, it does follow several of the same concepts and usually is significantly more complex than other indians.
There is the fianchetto theme of the light-square Bishop, similiar to Queen's Indian.
I did some research on the subject, and it seems the term "Indian Defense" was coined by John Cochrane. He'd gone to India and played many games there, where the Indian players were using fianchetto formations (queen or king-side) because of the older rule of pawns being able to only move one square on the first push.
Now since the Nimzo-Indian almost always features the queen-side bishop fianchetto, obviously it falls under the Indian defense catagory.
It's really called an Indian because of the pawns only moving one square forward instead of two; so sure, the Nimzo is an Indian.
Even though it may include the queenside fianchetto in some lines, that doesn't always occur though.
Like the Benoni is not considered an indian, even though it has the Bg7 fianchetto usually. This is because it has the Bd6-c7-a5 line known as the snake benoni.
The Benoni isn't an Indian Defense because it doesn't have to start with 1. ... Nf6.
The Benoni isn't an Indian because the first move is 1... c5.
On the other hand, the Benoni can be reached from the King's Indian.
Yeah but were not talking about the benoni
ill call my openings indians if I want and none of you can stop me from playing the indian lopez
Sure we were (until you started blabbing that we weren't).
My favorite is the Smith Morra Gambit Indian!
I frequently enjoy the King's Indian Attack Indian.
Old Indian and bogo Indian doesn't have a fiendhetto too
I think the term more refers to the one-square pawn move along with the knight. Originally I thought it was based on the fianchetto, but it seems to be more generally based on the initial passive pawn play in the center.
In English speaking countries The Ben-oni isn't considered an Indian defense, but in Eastern Europe the Ben-oni is considered a variation of the the King's Indian Defense. For Instance, in Tal's book about his 1960 match with Botvinnik, the Ben-oni games are labeled as King's Indian Defenses. I sometimes wondered if the Soviet insistence on calling the Ben-oni a King's Indian Defense variation was due to an anti-Semitic attitude. At any rate, the Soviets could not been expected to approve of a biblical name for a chess opening.
Although the fianchetto was common in openings in the subcontinent due to previous dominant versions of the game there, the appellation "Indian Defense" really just referred to 1 ...Nf3, which was a rarity in European and American chess, and not part of any particular system when it was played in the west.
In fact, none of the "Indian Defenses" are truly based on anything that was brought to the West from Indian except ...Nf6 itself. The first to acquire the designation was Grunfeld's "King's Indian Defense" - but it was what we now call the Grunfeld, he played ...d5 to make White work for e2-e4, what we now call the King's Indian is most closely related to the openings played in India at the turn of the 20th Century but it didn't become known as that until after WWII.
So the first several "Indian Defenses" - the Grunfeld, the Nimzo, and the Queen's Indian - were never close to being openings from India.
In the early days of the Modern Benoni (1d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6) it was usually referred to as the "Benoni Indian" to differentiate from the Benoni, which is 1 ...c5.
yeah... thats what i meant. i thought u were talking about the benoni 1... c5