23 ( +1 | -1 ) Taking Down the Nimzo-IndianDoes anyone have any recommendations for easy to learn, aggresive lines against the Nimzo-Indian (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4)? I've had some trouble against, and the one line I've tried (4.f3) hasn't given me much. I don't mind if the line is dubious, as long as it's fun.
26 ( +1 | -1 ) Stick to the main lines.Sorry, but there's really no choice but to stick to the main lines in the NID. White doesn't really have any gambits or any way of avoiding a positional struggle, and the sidelines are all simply inferior. If you choose to play 3. Nc3, this is just something you have to live with.
25 ( +1 | -1 ) Fischer defence (rarely played by Fischer) but named after him. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 b6 5.Nge2!? with a3 to follow. Unusual way to play against the Nimzo and easy to learn. Although I dont try to play this during tournements I would recommend this.
58 ( +1 | -1 ) Re: Fischer VariationThe Fischer Variation (ECO codes E43-E45) is characterized by 4... b6. 5. Ne2 is White's most popular and best response, and, in my opinion, it's really Black's fourth move that deserves the "!?" annotation. I've played a few games in this variation before, and personally consider it one of Black's least testing continuations. White should be able to hold on to his opening advantage with correct play.
In response to the original question, if you're looking for an alternative to the Rubinstein, Classical, and Saemisch Variations, you can try the Leningrad Variation, 4. Bg5. Boris Spassky often played this line successfully, and his games are particularly instructive.
27 ( +1 | -1 ) The only game I've seen in the Leningrad variation is Tal's famous slaughter of Spassky with an early ...b5. But I'll give it another look. If there are any other recommendations or someone would give a good sample game from a main line I would be greatful.
32 ( +1 | -1 ) The Samisch line ...but you should see the pawn gambit from Crispin vs R. Perry corr. from USCCC play, I believe the sixth or 7th. It is fully annotated in the tournament book by Allen Wright and Stephen Gerzadowicz, if you can find it. Might be on some of the online d-bases. I do not have a definate source at the moment, other than the book.
12 ( +1 | -1 ) Spassky's LossSpassky's loss to Tal in the Leningrad Variation was in fact his only career loss playing that line, as far as I know.
43 ( +1 | -1 ) You should realize that the Nimzo is widely regarded as one of, if not the best lines for black against 1.d4. "Taking down the Nimzo" probably won't happen. The best you can do is get the type of game and pawn structure you are most comfortable with. As white, you still lead the action (though black does have choices with his pawns too), so just decide where you really want to be out of the opening (besides up a queen and two rooks).
76 ( +1 | -1 ) I think one of the things that can make the Nimzo hard to handle as White is that Black can sit back behind a wall of pawns, even making retreating moves like Ne8 to avoid the Knight on f6 being pinned. The lines I would consider are the Rubinstein and Classical (Qc2) variations, which are sound, and keep White's pawn structure flexible, often avoiding the doubled pawns which can be a pain. As long as you know how to play the resulting structures (specific lines are of secondary importance here) better than your opponent, you shouldn't have problems. The Nimzo is such a popular defense because Black can get by without a huge amount of theory, so you as White have to learn ideas along with variations.
21 ( +1 | -1 ) Nimzo is regarded as a good line for black which is why many people as white play the 3.Nf3. However, it would only be sensible for white to avoid the Nimzo in GM play for us mortals Nc3 is just as good.
131 ( +1 | -1 ) For those who ...."don't mind dubious, if it is fun ..." there is this line vs the ...b6 Nimzo. It is in Fischer's '60 MEMORABLE GAMES' book, where he states WT does not have enough for the pawn after BL's Nc6. Which I've found to be true after making it one of my own "specialty" positions ... if BL is up to the task of playing enough like Fischer, long enough, to survive :) It requires some delicate positional and tactical decisions at times, which experience seems to indicate will not take place unless BL can play at Master or minimum Expert level in it. EG. For postal Master games Skeels-Collister BL was -+ by mid-middlegame. But in J.E.Warren-Collister, BL not winning until a late middlegame combination was sprung to win for BL; only after WT carried initiative well into the mid middlegame. Both required BL to play very acurately tho, and make some moves that might be viewed as exceptional to the usual principles ... (aka Ugly-Looking, but to quote Fischer and Evans and ... 'a pawn is worth a lot of trouble...' :)) But they would not have been playing this as WT in "The Region 7 Championship" and the "APCT Championship" tournaments without a lot of past success. And it should do very well for WT in Class play, imo. I found it quite difficult to find some moves BL needed, when first starting to play it. Tho can't claim any actual loss to WT.
75 ( +1 | -1 ) raskerino ... Another thought...springs to mind. If you haven't yet read the book which Cairo was recommending in a recent thread; "Pawn Power In Chess", by Hans Kmoch [an oldie, but goodie] .... then I can tell you that the book covers pawn formations and play from Nimzo-Indian type positions EXTENSIVELY. He even has his own Name for them. [Personally, I can never remember a Wyvill from a Rex-Wyvill, but it's Definately one of THOSE and NOT a "Benoni-Jump" formation~!! ] *** So if you did want to break down and brush-up on the pawn play against it, tho I suspect you've perhaps been having a bit more of that than suits you anyway. But maybe someone else can usethe info, if that's the case. ** }8-)
24 ( +1 | -1 ) thanks for the ideas everyone. I guess as a Spassky fan I'm leaning towards the Leningrad and I've looked at a couple games of his. If anyone wants to convince me something else is more interesting or has some info on the Leningrad that would be great.
15 ( +1 | -1 ) 4. Qb3An interesting idea is 4. Qb3 with the idea of 4...Bxc3 5. Qxc3 or 4...c5 5. dxc5 Bxc5. This is called the spielman variation after Rudolf Spielman.
25 ( +1 | -1 ) For me at least, I like the doubled c-pawns. Adds extra support to the massive center I intend to build. 4. a3 is nice for this, and it wins the bishop pair! Then again, have I even ever played the white side of the Nimzo...?
31 ( +1 | -1 ) Ne2 can be played even if b6 isnt played.
I like it because you can get bishop pair and no doubled pawns which is clearly better for white or if black retreats the bishop after a3 then you can play Ng3/f4. On g3 is best because you can then play f4 with out having to move a knight (as you would after Nf3 variations).