Just a plain and simple anti-Nimzo idea after 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.dxc5 f5 9.Qc2 O-O 10.e4 fxe4 11.fxe4 Nf4 12.Nf3 Qc7 13.Be3 Nd7 14.Bc4 Nxc5 15.0-0 Bd7 16. Rae1 b6, which is considered equal in Yakovich's 2004 book.  Here Timman versus Karpov, Reykjavik 1991 played 17.Bd4=.  I think White should play 17.e5 with a promising game.  (a) 17...b5 18.Ba2; (b) 17...Ba4 18.Qb1 Ng6 19.Qb4; (c) 17...h6 18.Nd4 (18...Nd5 is met by 19.Bxh6); best may be (d) 17...Ng6 18.Bd4 with what I perceive to be longterm pressure.

Markovich wrote on 04/28/09 at 01:45:13:

Just a plain and simple anti-Nimzo idea after 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 d5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.dxc5 f5 9.Qc2 O-O 10.e4 fxe4 11.fxe4 Nf4 12.Nf3 Qc7 13.Be3 Nd7 14.Bc4 Nxc5 15.0-0 Bd7 16. Rae1 b6, which is considered equal in Yakovich's 2004 book.  Here Timman versus Karpov, Reykjavik 1991 played 17.Bd4=.  I think White should play 17.e5 with a promising game.  (a) 17...b5 18.Ba2; (b) 17...Ba4 18.Qb1 Ng6 19.Qb4; (c) 17...h6 18.Nd4 (18...Nd5 is met by 19.Bxh6); best may be (d) 17...Ng6 18.Bd4 with what I perceive to be longterm pressure.

you play d5 twice as black and capture on c5 as white without black playing c5; so I guess typo :)

about your idea; looks like something I wouldn't mind playing as white although the  position looks messy and unballanced but that seems the be the general idea after 4 f3

Schaakhamster wrote on 04/28/09 at 14:12:58:

Markovich wrote on 04/28/09 at 01:45:13: Just a plain and simple anti-Nimzo idea after 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 d5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.dxc5 f5 9.Qc2 O-O 10.e4 fxe4 11.fxe4 Nf4 12.Nf3 Qc7 13.Be3 Nd7 14.Bc4 Nxc5 15.0-0 Bd7 16. Rae1 b6, which is considered equal in Yakovich's 2004 book.  Here Timman versus Karpov, Reykjavik 1991 played 17.Bd4=.  I think White should play 17.e5 with a promising game.  (a) 17...b5 18.Ba2; (b) 17...Ba4 18.Qb1 Ng6 19.Qb4; (c) 17...h6 18.Nd4 (18...Nd5 is met by 19.Bxh6); best may be (d) 17...Ng6 18.Bd4 with what I perceive to be longterm pressure. you play d5 twice as black and capture on c5 as white without black playing c5; so I guess typo :) about your idea; looks like something I wouldn't mind playing as white although the  position looks messy and unballanced but that seems the be the general idea after 4 f3

Yeah, on move six I put d5 instead of c5 as correct.  I fixed it in the original.

Messy is right I suppose, but for the time being I like the look of it for White.

In the line ) after 19...Bd7 20.Bxc5 bxc5 21.Qb2 Rf4 22.Qa2 Re8 23.Ng5 Rxf1 24.Rxf1 Qxe5 i do not see any reason why Black should be worse... But it is just a quick look at the position. Maybe I missed something...

Not wholly unrelated, but worth mentioning:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 c5 6.f3 d5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.dxc5 f5 9.Nh3 Qa5 10.e4 fxe4 11.Ng5 Nf6 after which Yakovich recommends 12.Qd6! Qxc3+ 13.Kf2 Bd7 14.Bb5 Qc2+ 15.Be2!? as better for White.  But the simple 12...h6! looks almost winning for Black...

MilenPetrov wrote on 05/01/09 at 08:42:16:

In the line ) after 19...Bd7 20.Bxc5 bxc5 21.Qb2 Rf4 22.Qa2 Re8 23.Ng5 Rxf1 24.Rxf1 Qxe5 i do not see any reason why Black should be worse... But it is just a quick look at the position. Maybe I missed something...

You may have - the first move that catches my eye is 19. h4!, and after checking it over quite quickly, it looks as though Black has some problems to solve here.

HgMan wrote on 04/06/10 at 01:38:05:

Not wholly unrelated, but worth mentioning: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 c5 6.f3 d5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.dxc5 f5 9.Nh3 Qa5 10.e4 fxe4 11.Ng5 Nf6 after which Yakovich recommends 12.Qd6! Qxc3+ 13.Kf2 Bd7 14.Bb5 Qc2+ 15.Be2!? as better for White.  But the simple 12...h6! looks almost winning for Black...

Yeah, actually I lost a CC game by blindly following Yakovich in that.

This doesn't have anything to do with this thread, but it does concern a line of 4.f3. I'm curious about this line:
4.a3 Bc3 5.bc3 d5 6.f3 c6 7.e4 (7.e3 is Azmaiparashvili-Macieja 2008 - I know Macieja is a specialist in the NID so I assume he isn't playing this by accident) 7...de4 8.fe4 e5
9.Nf3 Qa5 10.Qd3 Ne4!? 11.Ne5 (11.Qe4 is unclear but B seems okay after 11...Qc3 12.Kf2 Qa1 13.Qe5 Be6)
11...Qc3 12.Qc3 Nc3 13.Bd3 (transposing into some analysis by Volkov) "with compensation" - Black's game isn't easy with the offside Nc3. Maybe 13...f6 14.Nf3 Na4 (14...Na6 15.a4 Nb4 16.Kd2 wins a piece) - does W have just enough for the pawn or more? And how does B play this?

Another line here is 11...0-0!? 12.Bb2 Qb6 13.Rb1 Bf5!? when 14.g4 looks good.

Markovich wrote on 04/07/10 at 12:46:05:

HgMan wrote on 04/06/10 at 01:38:05: Not wholly unrelated, but worth mentioning: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 c5 6.f3 d5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.dxc5 f5 9.Nh3 Qa5 10.e4 fxe4 11.Ng5 Nf6 after which Yakovich recommends 12.Qd6! Qxc3+ 13.Kf2 Bd7 14.Bb5 Qc2+ 15.Be2!? as better for White.  But the simple 12...h6! looks almost winning for Black... Yeah, actually I lost a CC game by blindly following Yakovich in that.

I caught myself from the same fate at the last minute.  I'm not sure what prompted me to check: either it looked too straightforward, or I wanted to know why Black couldn't just play 12...h6. 

It does raise an interesting question, though, about when a cc player should start checking published analysis more thoroughly.  On the one hand, the answer is at move 1, and I certainly do give an awful lot of thought and preparation to options within the narrow confines of my mainline repertoire, but it can be awfully tempting to blindly follow repertoire book recommendations a little too far.  Discussion for another thread, perhaps.  I like the Yakovich book very much for what it is, but even good books require a little more scrutiny...

Normally I do check, but Yakovich is a source that I have trusted so much before, I allowed myself to become lazy.

Markovich wrote on 04/08/10 at 12:24:52:

Normally I do check, but Yakovich is a source that I have trusted so much before, I allowed myself to become lazy.

Me too, but I also was inclined to trust Yakovich.  I just got lucky that I didn't.  For what it's worth, this forum is a remarkable resource for catching a number of potential blunders involved in blindly following book recommendations.

Whenever I ask about a main line, no-one responds. Whenever I ask about a sideline, there is always a response.
Perhaps instead of chesspub.com this site should be called sidelinecity.com? I know the moderator of the e4e5 thread pointed out that hardly anyone seems to discuss the mainline Spanish there. Doesn't anyone study main lines? :o
They're main lines for a reason: because they provide the richest content, tactically and strategically, i.e. chess at its most complex and stimulating.

I was going to move your post to General Chess, but then I noticed that I'm not the moderator here!

Anyway, I agree.  Theory-dodging seems to be what mostly concerns a great many who post here.  But I should amend that.  Many who post here are not-very-strong amateurs, and these people have plausible reasons for preferring, for example, the Ponziani to the Spanish.

I understand that - but there's surely a place for both in an ideal world. Maybe it's time to learn Russian :-X - I won't say any more!

Feel free to transfer this topic to the general chess section. (I didn't even know there was such a section - sorry.)

I, for one, am I willing to just taking beatings in the Main Line Ruy Lopez's, all the Open Sicilian lines, until I get them right. I am studying a lot of 1. e4 main lines lately in an attempt to construct a repertoire, so expect some questions quite soon.

I generally agree that it's surprising for a site like this to see so many people posting questions about openings like the Wing Gambit, Ponziani and such, and not that much about main lines like the Bayonet Attack, Main Line Ruy Lopez's, and so on.

However, 6...c6 in the 4. f3 Nimzo Indian isn't exactly a main line. There are at least two moves that get played more in this position (guessing), and about 3-4 moves that get played more often on move 4 right?

There seem to be a bizillion ways for Black to fight against 4.f3, all of them on the borderline of validity.  The only one I fully respect is 4...d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.cxd5 Nxd5.  But White has to be completely on his toes in a wide range of other cases, and I haven't always been successful in my struggle to prove White's advantage.  In general though, I revel in White's pawn center and, often as well, in his two bishops.

True, 6..c6 isn't a main line in the sense that e.g. the Zaitsev Spanish is a main line. But the theory on 4.f3 is still evolving and relatively fresh. The line given by Markovich is generally accepted as the main line of 4.f3 with 8.dc being the most irritating move for Black. This is quite difficult for Black to meet and his winning chances seem to be zero (reasonable drwing chances though if B is prepare to soak up a little pressure!) That's why I asked about 6...c6.

Yeah, I totally agree. When I played 1. d4 exlusively, I relied on 4. f3, and to be honest, scored heavily with it - I'd estimate around 80% OTB. I think that in the main line, despite White's embarrassing tripled c-pawns, the extra pawn and two bishops make a strong impression, especially against weak players who don't understand the plans.

Tripler64 wrote on 04/16/10 at 14:21:52:

True, 6..c6 isn't a main line in the sense that e.g. the Zaitsev Spanish is a main line. But the theory on 4.f3 is still evolving and relatively fresh. The line given by Markovich is generally accepted as the main line of 4.f3 with 8.dc being the most irritating move for Black. This is quite difficult for Black to meet and his winning chances seem to be zero (reasonable drwing chances though if B is prepare to soak up a little pressure!) That's why I asked about 6...c6.

It is not difficult for black to meet if prepared, and white has no more winning chances than black in the main lines (that are dead drawn for the most part). Only the lack of winning chances argument stands up.

The only game I've ever lost OTB to 4. f3 (out of 5 games, 4 of which against 2200+ competition, final score being +3 -1 =1) was to IM Taylor when I pressed for more in an equal position. That was also the first time I had ever gotten 4. f3 OTB (the game appears in the chesslive.de database), so my opening play wasn't as good as it should've been.

Many Nimzo players don't bother learning the theory of the opening that deeply (compared to practicioners of the Grunfeld, or Semi-Slav), leading 4. f3 to have tremendous success as a result of the black player being largely unprepared, and white's plans being simple enough that 1600s could probably play the white side.

Quote:

... the game appears in the chesslive.de database ...

Hasn't this site -- http://www.chesslive.de/ -- gone defunct? Is there a new one?? If so could you post the link?

BPaulsen wrote on 04/16/10 at 17:46:15:

Many Nimzo players don't bother learning the theory of the opening that deeply (compared to practicioners of the Grunfeld, or Semi-Slav)...

Now there's a claim for you.


BPaulsen wrote on 04/16/10 at 17:46:15:

...leading 4. f3 to have tremendous success as a result of the black player being largely unprepared and white's plans being simple enough that 1600s could probably play the white side.

And there's another.  I'll let those who play OTB sort that out, but it does look like a powerful practical argument for taking up 4.f3.  I myself don't think that White's game is so frightfully easy for an unprepared player to play, however.

In CC I rarely encounter a Black who doesn't know the "right" moves, but I do frequently encounter Blacks who have no idea of the dangers Black faces even in the lines that are nominally adequate for Black.

Markovich wrote on 04/16/10 at 19:15:16:

Now there's a claim for you.

At least one GM has admitted to it to my knowledge, so it's not hard to believe it goes on in the lesser ranks. Not much of a claim when at least one titled player does it.


Quote:

And there's another.  I'll let those who play OTB sort that out, but it does look like a powerful practical argument for taking up 4.f3.  I myself don't think that White's game is so frightfully easy for an unprepared player to play, however.

4. f3 is definitely a good practical choice for that reason.


Quote:

In CC I rarely encounter a Black who doesn't know the "right" moves, but I do frequently encounter Blacks who have no idea of the dangers Black faces even in the lines that are nominally adequate for Black.

In CC, correct me if I'm wrong, databases are okay to use, no? That usually makes it harder to not figure out the right moves, if so.

I thought I might take up a 4.f3 repertoire against the Nimzo on ICCF. I got lucky in my most recent win in that my opponent chose a rather inferior line against it, though his computer almost managed to bail him out into an opposite colored bishop ending. In the end, he relied too heavily on the computer instead of intervening with human knowledge and trading down correctly into a drawn ending. Instead his computer did just enough to lose the game:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Be7
6.e4 c5 7.e5 Nfd7 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Nxd5 cxd4 10.Nxe7 Qxe7
11.f4 f6 12.Nf3 fxe5 13.Bc4 Nc6 14.O-O e4 15.Bd5 Nf6
16.Bxc6+ bxc6 17.Nxd4 O-O 18.Be3 c5 19.Nb3 Ba6 20.Bxc5 Qc7
21.Re1 Rfd8 22.Qc1 Qf7 23.Na5 Rac8 24.b4 Bd3 25.Qd2 Nd5
26.f5 Rd7 27.Qf2 g6 28.fxg6 Qxg6 29.Rac1 Rf7 30.Qa2 Nf4
31.Kh1 h6 32.Bd4 Rxc1 33.Rxc1 Kh7 34.Nc6 Be2 35.Rg1 Rf5
36.Be3 Qxc6 37.Bxf4 Bd3 38.Be3 a6 39.h3 Bf1 40.a4 h5
41.Qa1 Qf6 42.Qb1 Bd3 43.Qc1 h4 44.Qc8 Qf8 45.Qc3 Qg7
46.Bd4 Qd7 47.Rc1 Kg8 48.Kg1 Kh7 49.Bf2 Qg7 50.Qd2 Qe5
51.Bxh4 Qf4 52.Qxf4 Rxf4 53.Bg5 Rf7 54.h4 Kg6 55.g4 Kh7
56.Rc6 Rf3 57.Re6 Rg3+ 58.Kf2 Rxg4 59.b5 axb5 60.a5 e3+
61.Kxe3 Bc4 62.Rh6+ Kg7 63.a6 Bf7 64.Rd6 Ra4 65.Bf6+ Kf8
66.Bd4 Ke7 67.Bc5 Ke8 68.a7 b4 69.Rd4 Ra3+ 70.Kf4 Ra6
71.h5 Bxh5 72.Rxb4 Kd7 73.Rb8 Kc6 74.a8=Q+ Rxa8 75.Rxa8 Bf7
76.Be7 Kd5 77.Ra5+ 1-0

About a3 Be7 line, I think that after e4, dxe4 fxe4 e5! has been recommended for black. However I am at work so I dont have access to a board or engine.

Yes, that's an old book line.

bragesjo wrote on 10/04/10 at 13:22:01:

About a3 Be7 line, I think that after e4, dxe4 fxe4 e5! has been recommended for black. However I am at work so I dont have access to a board or engine.

Which I was prepared for just in case. My database culled from ICCF shows white enjoying a 60% share of the advantage in that line, though there are some rather drawish continuations black can adopt.

At any rate, 4. f3 was just a bit of a fling for me. I don't think I will be using it regularly.

Your database "culled from ICCF" is from the ICCF games archive, right? I didn't know about this resource, and now I'm a bit confused by the many files to download, i.e. there's a file with "ICCF Server Games 2008" and also a much smaller one with "All Games Added in 2008"! Are the latter e-mail games rather than server, or what?

I bought the final edition of Tim Harding's Ultra Corr Database (3A) just before he ceased business this summer; I assume he took care to include all ICCF games up to early 2010.

Yes, ICCF has many packages as they continue to add game archives. I'd been just combining archive packages into one large file, and then I make a custom opening book based on the games in my combined file. I prefer not to include anything older than 2007 as that's generally the year multi-core computers and deep engines exploded onto the scene.

FirebrandX wrote on 10/04/10 at 22:29:37:

Yes, ICCF has many packages as they continue to add game archives. I'd been just combining archive packages into one large file, and then I make a custom opening book based on the games in my combined file. I prefer not to include anything older than 2007 as that's generally the year multi-core computers and deep engines exploded onto the scene.

you know, that is quite a clever idea in a way. Do you select on rating?   

Yes, I make two opening books. One with all games, and one with 2200+ rating required from one or both players. It's interesting to see which lines start to fail for one side or the other, and how the main lines eventually reach a dead drawn position. The Sicilian defense, for example, is mapped to death.

I am an 4.f3 player, although I also play the Saemisch (4.a3) which can transpose.

I'm not afraid of d5 in particular after 5.a3 Bc3 6.bc3 c5 7.cd5: Nd5: 8.dc5: (Keres) white is doing fine. No one ever played 8. ... f5!? against me, every one goes 8 ... Qa5 9.e4.

For me the really critical lines are:
(a) 4. ... Nc6!? 5.a3 Bc3:+ 6.bc3: b6 7.e4 Ba6, and
(b) 4. ... c5 5.d5 d6 6.e4 Bc3:+ 7.bc3: e5. The latter leads to a typically Nimzo position where it's very hard to achieve anything for white.

Oh, I don't know.  That big fat f5 square is there.

NeverGiveUp wrote on 01/13/11 at 09:46:06:

I am an 4.f3 player, although I also play the Saemisch (4.a3) which can transpose. For me the really critical lines are: (a) 4. ... Nc6!? 5.a3 Bc3:+ 6.bc3: b6 7.e4 Ba6, and (b) 4. ... c5 5.d5 d6 6.e4 Bc3:+ 7.bc3: e5. The latter leads to a typically Nimzo position where it's very hard to achieve anything for white.

(a) 5.e4 should be an improvement, so that line has no point
(b) after 8.Ld3 Nbd7 9.Ne2 Nf8 10.Be3 as in Yakovich - Ibragimov, Sotschi 1997, where is the fun for Black? Wherever Black castles, White can attack. In nine games in my database, Black gets away with one draw, White wins eight games.

4 .. Nc6 5 e4 certainly isn't obviously better - it gets hit by 5.. d5 when Yakovich gives 6 cd ed 7 e5 Ng8 intending to send it round to f5 after a subsequent f4.

On some level 4 .. o-o is much the most annoying response. I know 5 a3 etc is OK but if white can't go 5 e4 then (and its not obvious that he can effectively) they why on earth did he play 4 f3?!

Well, I suppose the short answer is that White avoids some of the anti-Saemisch systems, which is really the whole thing about 4.f3.  Also fwiw, 4.f3 O-O 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 reaches a position that many people consider promising for White.  An important point is that 6...Nh5 is met by 7.Nh3 f5 8.Bg5!.

After 4...Nc6, 5.e4 scores much better than 5.a3 in my database.  That early b6 anti-Saemisch system is one of the main ones that 4.f3 is trying to avoid, so I don't see why he would play that and then 4...Nc6 5.a3.  It's a game of chess after ...Ng8, a line relevant to the evaluation of 4.f3.  I have no particular judgment about it, but I wouldn't be so quick to say that White lacks his normal chances there.

Everyone is quoting Yakovich here but a more recent source os Moskalenko's "revolutionalise" book where he spends many pages analysing 4.f3. If i remember correctly in the last pages he gives some variations as unclear without tring too much for White but i would expect from you at least a discussion of his ideas.

Btw, Kramnik played 4.f3 with White yesterday in Wijk aan Zee!

Anand too now, as well as in his WC match vs Kramnik of course. I do think that the 4 .. d5 stuff isn't hugely easy equality. Slightly more comfortable for white somehow and its hardly forcing so should be scope to find ideas and probe.

Not lethal either but not really huge fun to play as black (I've only tried it as white). Which is likely all you can ask for vs the Nimzo.

Nice to hear that about 4 .. Nc6 5 e4 actually :) (and 5 a3 o-o).

It's been my experience in CC that 4...c5 is vastly superior to 4...d5 against the 4. f3 variation. Here's an example of my own usage of 4...c5 to reach a winning endgame against my CC opponent on ICCF:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 O-O 6.e4 d6 7.Bd2 exd5 8.cxd5 Nh5 9.Qe2 f5 10.O-O-O Re8 11.Nh3 Nd7 12.Qe3 Nhf6 13.Ng5 Nb6 14.Bb5 Re7 15.Qf4 h6 16.Ne6 Bxe6 17.dxe6 a6 18.Bd3 fxe4 19.Nxe4 Bxd2+ 20.Rxd2 Rxe6 21.Nxf6+ Qxf6 22.Qxf6 Rxf6 23.Be4 Ra7 24.Rhd1 Nc8 25.Rd5 b5 26.Kb1 Kf7 27.g4 Ke7 28.g5 hxg5 29.Rxg5 Kf8 30.Rh5 Ne7 31.Rh8+ Kf7 32.Rd8 Nf5 33.Rg1 Ke7 34.Rg8 Ke6 35.Re8+ Re7 36.Bxf5+ Rxf5 37.Re1+ Re5 38.Rxe5+ dxe5 39.Ra8 Rf7 40.Rxa6+ Kd5 41.Ra3 Kd4 42.Rb3 g5 43.Kc2 c4 44.Rxb5 Rxf3 45.Rb8 Rf2+ 46.Kc1 g4

I've got a won endgame position after the 46th move. Below is another ICCF game where I have white and have reached a winning position quite quickly versus one of the 4...d5 lines:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 O-O 7.cxd5 exd5 8.e3 Re8 9.Bd3 b6 10.Ne2 c5 11.O-O Ba6 12.Ng3 Bxd3 13.Qxd3 Nc6 14.Bb2 c4 15.Qe2 h5 16.e4 dxe4 17.fxe4 h4 18.Nh5 Nxe4 19.Qxc4 Qd7 20.Rf4 Na5 21.Qd3 f5 22.Raf1 Rf8 23.Rxh4 Rae8 24.c4 g5 25.Rh3 g4 26.Rh4 Qc7 27.d5 Nxc4 28.d6

I've in fact reached many winning and nearly winning positions when black opts for 4...d5, while 4...c5 leaves white with a lack-luster middlegame battle. I just don't understand why d5 remains the 'main' line when c5 is clearly better in meeting the 4. f3 variation.

Nice games.  But of course, the second game is a Botvinnik System, which is considered by most people to be quite good for White.  Black has to play 6...c5 and then recapture on d5 with his knight, as I believe you'll agree.  After that, I don't think either side's game is so easy to play in those positions where White's pawns are miserable after dxc5, yet he has an extra one and the two bishops into the bargain.  I've managed to lose miserably from both sides in that variation, though I've won some nice games also.  That is what I personally consider to be the main challenge to 4.f3.  But I'm interested to hear of your success with 4...c5. 

If your opponents are playing 4...d5 and recapturing on d5 with the pawn, I can understand why you think 4...d5 is awful for Black.

I hope I have not asked this yet...  :-/

I am constructing my Nimzo repertoire.
4.f3 c5 is my choice as Black
(because I prefer 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 c5 6.f3 Nc6 7.e4 d6 over 6..d5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 etc)
but I don't know much about it.

What lines should I pay the most attention to? (any recommended model games?)

The line which made me quit 4.f3 vs the Nimzo and in which a strong white player recently lost as white is 4.f3 c5 5.d5 b5: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1605979

Klick wrote on 03/01/11 at 16:31:45:

The line which made me quit 4.f3 vs the Nimzo and in which a strong white player recently lost as white is 4.f3 c5 5.d5 b5: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1605979

O.K., maybe this was another unanswerable question of mine. There had been many.
Then I'll try to be more exact.

How do you think the concrete variations following 5.d5 Nh5 are good for Black?
Or is it better to strive for a Benoni-type position?
(Even if it is a strong reply, I don't like Klick's suggestion, the look of the Blumenfeld-like 5..b5 whatsoever.)

Klick wrote on 03/01/11 at 16:31:45:

The line which made me quit 4.f3 vs the Nimzo and in which a strong white player recently lost as white is 4.f3 c5 5.d5 b5: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1605979

The book "Dangerous Weapons: The Nimzo Indian" has a chapter called "A souped up Blumenfeld" feutering the move order 5 .. 0-0 6 e4 b5 and it seems to transpose to that game.

I have not had  time to study it yet, busy at work but looking at the diagrams suggests the the position is a total mess where anything can happen.

Some quick lines in b5 line if anyone is interested. Quick look indicateds that blacks position is very playalbe. I can not give the entire chapter but they seems to improve over Yakovich at several points. I dont have Yakovich book myself but they have references to it in the article.

---

bragesjo wrote on 03/11/11 at 18:58:42:

Some quick lines in b5 line if anyone is interested. Quick look indicateds that blacks position is very playalbe. I can not give the entire chapter but they seems to improve over Yakovich at several points. I dont have Yakovich book myself but they have references to it in the article.

Shirov-Kramnik, 2010 (1-0) is a critical game for this line. The analysis that appeared on chessbase seemed to think black could equalize, but my own investigations just showed a furiously complicated position that is wildly unclear. Further testing is definitely needed for the entire line.

After 4...c5 5. d5 0-0 6. e4 b5 7. e5 Ne8 8. f4 exd5 9. cxd5 d6 10. Nf3 my preference is for Nc7 (Baum-Dutra Neto, 2008, 1/2-1/2) instead of Kramnik's choice of 10...c4 based on what I've looked at.

Thanks for the input. I will have a look at it :-)

I am repeating my question from a few posts ago.

If one doesn't like the early ..b5 variations (and those messy positions),
then do the following games represent a good way of playing the Black side?
(I have collected and now attached a PGN file including six recent games of "2400+"-rated Black players.)

I am not an expert in this kind of Benoni-like positions, that's why I am asking. ("f3" vs. "b4B + delayed exd5", etc)
Is there any guideline? Is it playable as Black? (or only against weaker opposition?)

---

I dont consider myself an expert on these positions, but I will make one more post. Some liens in pgn that I attached had some errors where I blindly followed book and not even Houdini discovered the error sa tfirst sight, but there was better moves for both sides.

If black wants to play something that that is more soild than the pgn line I posted black can also play

[Event "Blitz:5'+2""]
[Site "Eskilstuna"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "Houdini 1.5 w32"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "32"]
[TimeControl "300+2"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4.
f3 c5 5. d5 O-O 6. e4 d6 7. Nge2 (7. Bd3 b5 8. Nge2 (8. dxe6 Bxe6 9. cxb5 a6
$44) 8... Nbd7 9. dxe6 fxe6 10. cxb5 Ne5 $13 11. Bf4 (11. O-O a6 12. Be3 d5 13.
exd5 exd5 14. Bg5 Nxd3 15. Qxd3 Bb7 $44) 11... Nxd3+ 12. Qxd3 d5 13. exd5 exd5
14. O-O d4 15. Ne4 Nxe4 16. fxe4 Be6 $44) 7... b5 8. Nf4 {Shirov} (8. dxe6 Bxe6
9. cxb5 a6 $44) (8. Ng3 Bb7) (8. a3 Ba5) 8... e5 9. Nfe2 Nh5 {
unmentioned by Yakovich} 10. g4 (10. cxb5 f5 $36 {Marin}) 10... Qh4+ 11. Kd2
Nf4 12. Nxf4 exf4 13. cxb5 a6 14. bxa6 Bxa6 15. Kc2 Bxc3 16. bxc3 Nd7 $44 *

I have a rather mundane question. I've read through four pages on 4.f3 without coming on the name for this variation.

I had thought this had a name, but I recently read a Wikipedia article suggesting that it either doesn't have an accepted name. Is there a consensus on what 4.f3 is called?

John Emms used the name "Open Samisch" in the "Easy Guide to the Nimzo-Indian" (Presumably 4.a3 is the "closed" Samisch.) Indeed if you google "open samisch" there are a few hits suggesting that this nomenclature is not unique to Emms.

Moskalenko in his "Revolutionize" book calls it the Kmoch variation, while admitting he doesn't know how it got that name.

In my database there are games by Kmoch that could conceivably have been reached with 4.f3, but in fact 4.a3 was the move order in all of them.

I read about the term Open Samisch and Closed Samisch. According to Keene, the open Samisch is a3 variation when black plays d5 and captures with the knight (and this usually transposes to f3 variation) (EDIT or was it c5 first with d5 as followup?)  and the closed Samisch is when black playes c5 instead (EDIT and does not followed up by d5).

Does Moskalenko cover all of the variations in his Revolutionize your chess book?

bragesjo wrote on 03/28/11 at 06:45:59:

I read about the term Open Samisch and Closed Samisch. According to Keene, the open Samisch is a3 variation when black plays d5 and captures with the knight (and this usually transposes to f3 variation) (EDIT or was it c5 first with d5 as followup?)  and the closed Samisch is when black playes c5 instead (EDIT and does not followed up by d5).

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4.
a3 (4. f3 d5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 c5 7. cxd5 Nxd5 {transposes}) 4... Bxc3+ 5.
bxc3 c5 6. f3 (6. e3 {etc was called closed Saemish}) 6... d5 7. cxd5 Nxd5 {
was called open Saemish} *

recently i started to play the 4.f3 variation. can somebody guide me in this position.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 d5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 O-O 7. cxd5 exd5 8. e3 Nh5
the mainline seems to be 9. Qc2 Re8 10.g4 Nf4 11. Kf2 Ne6.
but moskalenko played 9. g3.

thx for help

macaking wrote on 04/15/11 at 19:03:15:

recently i started to play the 4.f3 variation. can somebody guide me in this position. 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 d5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 O-O 7. cxd5 exd5 8. e3 Nh5 the mainline seems to be 9. Qc2 Re8 10.g4 Nf4 11. Kf2 Ne6. but moskalenko played 9. g3. thx for help

I dont have this book myself but there is a book called
"Play the 4 F3 Nimzo-Indian" by Yuri Yakovich where the line should by covered.

Can you guys help me please -what is the current theoretical verdict on 4.f3? Do Yakovich' analyses still stand up? In particular I have the following questions:
1.What is the current verdict on 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 b5!?
2.What is the current verdict on 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 d6 6.e4 Bc3:+ 7.bc3: e5?
3.How does 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.a3 (not mentioned by Yakovich) compare to 5.d5?

NeverGiveUp wrote on 08/18/11 at 08:08:01:

3.How does 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.a3 (not mentioned by Yakovich) compare to 5.d5?

The best game for both sides in this variation seems to be
Diez Del Corral, Jesus (2415) - Olafsson, Helgi (2270), Malta, 1980 1/2 which followed:
[pgn]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Nc6 7. e4 d6 8. Be3 Qa5 9. Qd2 b6 10. Bd3 cxd4 11. cxd4 Qxd2+ 12. Kxd2 Na5 13. Rb1 Ba6 14. c5 Bxd3 15. Kxd3 dxc5 16. dxc5 Nd7 17. cxb6 axb6 18. Nh3 Ne5+ 19. Ke2 Nac4
[/pgn]
All I can say for this game is that its quality is like Rybka played vs Houdini, except 17. Nh3!? which is not crucial.
So imho white has to abandon this 5. a3?!. And probably Yakovich knew it.  ;)

NeverGiveUp wrote on 08/18/11 at 08:08:01:

2.What is the current verdict on 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 d6 6.e4 Bc3:+ 7.bc3: e5?

I don't like this setup for black. As a correspondent chess player I've studied this variation through and through. Especially the stem game Pal Benko (2408) - Lajos Portisch (2523), Budapest 1956 which I find very instructive:
[pgn]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 c5 5. d5 d6 6. e4 Bxc3 7. bxc3 e5 8. Bd3 Nh5 9. Ne2 Qh4 10. g3 Qh3 11. Kf2 O-O
[/pgn]
I think this is the critical position for this variation. And now 12. Bg5! f6 13. Be3 g6 14. g4!? Ng7 15. Ng1 Qh4+ 16. Kg2 f5 17. exf5 gxf5 18. h3 Nd7 19. Qd2 Qe7 20. Bg5 Nf6 leads to better chances for white (although, in this sharp variation OTB the result can vary). For example: 21. Rf1 Rf7 22. Ne2 e4 23. Bc2 exf3+ 24. Rxf3 fxg4 25. hxg4 Bxg4 26. Re3 Qd7 27. Bxf6 Rxf6 28. Bxh7+ Kf8 29. Ng3 Re8 30. Ne4 Rxe4 31. Bxe4 Nh5 32. Rg3!
I don't think this analysis of mine is perfect. It was made some years ago when my corr. "helpers" (the chess engines) were not like Rybka and Houdini.. But the fact is that white has more space and they can bring all the pieces they need on the king's side..  ;)

NeverGiveUp wrote on 08/18/11 at 08:08:01:

1.What is the current verdict on 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 b5!?

I don't know what is "the current verdict" on this extremely hard to play for both sides variation. All I can say is that maybe black has to follow the game Gudmundur Gislason (2328) - Bjorgvin Jonsson (2364), Reykjavik 1993
[pgn]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 c5 5. d5 b5 6. e4 bxc4 7. Bxc4 Nxd5 8. Bxd5 exd5 9. Qxd5 Nc6 10. Nge2 Ba6 11. a3!? Bxc3 12. Nxc3
[/pgn]
Now 12... 0-0! (12... Qb8!?) seems to be enough for dynamic equality. For example: 13. Qc5 Qb8 14. f4 Rc8 15. Kf2 d6 16. Qe3 Na5 17. Rd1 Nc4 18. Qd4 Nxb2 19. Rd2 Rc4 20. Qxd6 Qxd6 21. Rxd6 Rxc3 22. Bxb2 Rc2+ 23. Ke3 (23. Kg1 Bb7 =) 23... Rxb2 24. Rxa6 Rxg2 25. Rd1 Rxh2 26. Rxa7 =
As for 11. Kf2! 0-0 12. Rd1 Re8! 13. Bf4 which is following the game Avigdor Bykhovsky (2495) - Uffe Vinter-Schou (2379), Hastings 1990, I think 13... Qf6!? now is giving black some prospects for a compensation for the pawn after 14. Qxd7 Bxe2 15. Nxe2 Rad8 ... and so on..
Anyway, if you want to know what is "the verdict" on some 'x'-variation, just ask a good correspondent player: "Will you play this 'x'-variation in your corr. games?".
And he'll probably tell you: "Why not? Maybe in a tournament when I don't care for my results."  ;D
I would tell you the same as a second player in this variation though I'm not pretending to be so good to give some verdict on it.  ;)

Vass wrote on 08/18/11 at 10:08:35:

The best game for both sides in this variation seems to be Diez Del Corral, Jesus (2415) - Olafsson, Helgi (2270), Malta, 1980 1/2 which followed: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Nc6 7. e4 d6 8. Be3 Qa5 9. Qd2 b6 10. Bd3 cxd4 11. cxd4 Qxd2+ 12. Kxd2 Na5 13. Rb1 Ba6 14. c5 Bxd3 15. Kxd3 dxc5 16. dxc5 Nd7 17. cxb6 axb6 18. Nh3 Ne5+ 19. Ke2 Nac4 All I can say for this game is that its quality is like Rybka played vs Houdini, except 17. Nh3!? which is not crucial. So imho white has to abandon this 5. a3?!. And probably Yakovich knew it.  ;)

I agree that in this variation the idea Qa5 followed by exchanging on d2 is good for black. But white can avoid it by either playing 8.Ne2 or 9.Kf2!?. In particular this latter possibility looks attractive to me.

NeverGiveUp wrote on 08/18/11 at 14:16:10:

Vass wrote on 08/18/11 at 10:08:35: The best game for both sides in this variation seems to be Diez Del Corral, Jesus (2415) - Olafsson, Helgi (2270), Malta, 1980 1/2 which followed: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Nc6 7. e4 d6 8. Be3 Qa5 9. Qd2 b6 10. Bd3 cxd4 11. cxd4 Qxd2+ 12. Kxd2 Na5 13. Rb1 Ba6 14. c5 Bxd3 15. Kxd3 dxc5 16. dxc5 Nd7 17. cxb6 axb6 18. Nh3 Ne5+ 19. Ke2 Nac4 All I can say for this game is that its quality is like Rybka played vs Houdini, except 17. Nh3!? which is not crucial. So imho white has to abandon this 5. a3?!. And probably Yakovich knew it.  ;) I agree that in this variation the idea Qa5 followed by exchanging on d2 is good for black. But white can avoid it by either playing 8.Ne2 or 9.Kf2!?. In particular this latter possibility looks attractive to me.

Well, after 8. Ne2 and 9. Kf2 (or both in the reverse order) the plan for black is simple - 8... 0-0, 9... b6, 10... h6 (to avoid the Bg5-pin), 11... Ba6, 12... Rc8 and 13... Na5 (or some in a reverse order), and even Qc7 next if needed, on almost everything white plays. The c4-pawn is doomed if not d4xc5 (not a good looking move at all). The chances for an attack for white are not big. Why enter into it?  :-?
Edit: Opposing the black's attack over c4, the only plan for white can be d4-d5 after all, but white has to find the right timing for it or will be dead with this king on f2. The plan with e4-e5 seems suicidal to me, too..  ;)

Point taken Vass: thanks for your valuable input.

Must admit I'm not so keen on playing 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.a3 Bc3:+ 6.bc3: Nc6 7.e4 d6 with white, especially against a well-prepared opponent. White's problem is he wants to go Bd3 & Ne2 but Bd3 immediately loses a pawn. You are right the c4 pawn is doomed here and white may not have enough to show for it.

But I'm also not very keen on 5.d5 b5!? which is very complex and messy and black may be well prepared and may be doing well theoretically.

I am looking at several options on how to tackle the nimzo with white for the coming season and my latest idea is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bc3:+ 5.bc3: c5 6.e3 Nc6 7.Bd3 0-0 8.e4!? a very interesting pawn sac with the point 8. ... cd4: 9.cd4: Nd4: 10.e5 Qa5+ 11.Kf1 Ne8 (11. ... Qe5:?? 12.Bb2) 12.Bd2 Qc7 13.Bb4 d6 14.Bh7:+ Kh7: 15.Qd4: a5 16.ed6: Qd7 17.Bc5 and white is a pawn up. 

NeverGiveUp wrote on 08/19/11 at 10:39:33:

Point taken Vass: thanks for your valuable input. Must admit I'm not so keen on playing 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.a3 Bc3:+ 6.bc3: Nc6 7.e4 d6 with white, especially against a well-prepared opponent. White's problem is he wants to go Bd3 & Ne2 but Bd3 immediately loses a pawn. You are right the c4 pawn is doomed here and white may not have enough to show for it. But I'm also not very keen on 5.d5 b5!? which is very complex and messy and black may be well prepared and may be doing well theoretically. I am looking at several options on how to tackle the nimzo with white for the coming season and my latest idea is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bc3:+ 5.bc3: c5 6.e3 Nc6 7.Bd3 0-0 8.e4!? a very interesting pawn sac with the point 8. ... cd4: 9.cd4: Nd4: 10.e5 Qa5+ 11.Kf1 Ne8 (11. ... Qe5:?? 12.Bb2) 12.Bd2 Qc7 13.Bb4 d6 14.Bh7:+ Kh7: 15.Qd4: a5 16.ed6: Qd7 17.Bc5 and white is a pawn up.

And you are not afraid of 9... d5!  :-?

Vass wrote on 08/20/11 at 19:34:52:

And you are not afraid of 9... d5!  :-?

Well it is a good move. I would continue 10.e5 with the idea 10. ... Ne4 11.Ne2 cd4: 12.cd4: Qa5+ 13.Bd2 Nd2: 14.Qd2: Qd2:+ 15.Kd2: Na5 16.cd5:!? Nb3+ 17.Kc3 Na1: 18.d6! when white will follow up with Ra1: and has excellent compensation for the exchange (a very remarkable idea of my computer).
Black's best is probably 10. ... dc4: 11.Bc4: Nd5 12.Ne2 with equality. But I expect OTB that not many black players will go d5.   

NeverGiveUp wrote on 08/22/11 at 09:53:37:

Vass wrote on 08/20/11 at 19:34:52: And you are not afraid of 9... d5!  :-? Well it is a good move. I would continue 10.e5 with the idea 10. ... Ne4 11.Ne2 cd4: 12.cd4: Qa5+ 13.Bd2 Nd2: 14.Qd2: Qd2:+ 15.Kd2: Na5 16.cd5:!? Nb3+ 17.Kc3 Na1: 18.d6! when white will follow up with Ra1: and has excellent compensation for the exchange (a very remarkable idea of my computer). Black's best is probably 10. ... dc4: 11.Bc4: Nd5 12.Ne2 with equality. But I expect OTB that not many black players will go d5.

If that is what you mean...then don't!
[pgn]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 c5 6. e3 Nc6 7. Bd3 O-O 8. e4 cxd4 9. cxd4 d5 10. e5 dxc4 11. Bxc4 Qxd4! 12. Qxd4 Nxd4 *
[/pgn]

BTW I am now seriously working on my Saemisch understanding (rather than learning variations) by going through Ivan Sokolov's Winning Chess Middlegames. He has a large part on doubled pawns, mostly focussing on the Saemisch variation, and discusses the different structures that can arise. It's a great book by a great player. 

Vass wrote on 08/22/11 at 18:03:18:

NeverGiveUp wrote on 08/22/11 at 09:53:37: Vass wrote on 08/20/11 at 19:34:52: And you are not afraid of 9... d5!  :-? Well it is a good move. I would continue 10.e5 with the idea 10. ... Ne4 11.Ne2 cd4: 12.cd4: Qa5+ 13.Bd2 Nd2: 14.Qd2: Qd2:+ 15.Kd2: Na5 16.cd5:!? Nb3+ 17.Kc3 Na1: 18.d6! when white will follow up with Ra1: and has excellent compensation for the exchange (a very remarkable idea of my computer). Black's best is probably 10. ... dc4: 11.Bc4: Nd5 12.Ne2 with equality. But I expect OTB that not many black players will go d5.    If that is what you mean...then don't! 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 c5 6. e3 Nc6 7. Bd3 O-O 8. e4 cxd4 9. cxd4 d5 10. e5 dxc4 11. Bxc4 Qxd4! 12. Qxd4 Nxd4 *

White is doing allright here after 13.ef6: Nc2+ 14.Ke2 Na1: 15.Bb2 winning the exchange and keeping the bishops pair. I would say in these variations black has equality at most with precise play, so this whole 8.e4!? variation seems perfectly playable for white. I'd say I find 8. cd4: 9.cd4: d5 not very logical since black opens up the position while white has the two bishops, and helps white to get rid of his doubled pawns. 

15. Bb2 b5 and then what?

I don't see white doing alright. If the engine is to be believed then white is significantly worse. My personal view is that black at the minimum has a safe small edge.

Better 8.Ne2 and e4 later. And why not? Ne2 is highly thematic.

I find NGU's line beginning with 8.e4 highly unattractive. The best White can hope for is that that pawn on g7 cramps Black enough to save the draw (ie at some point Black cannot make any progress except lifting the King from his duty by returning the Exchange with ...Rxg7).
Besides that there is 10...Ne4 idea 11...Qa5+ stiffling all White's chances in the bud. For an attacking player insipid lines like this are at least as problematic.

MNb wrote on 08/25/11 at 13:47:53:

I find NGU's line beginning with 8.e4 highly unattractive.

Right guys if this is the verdict - what do you consider an attractive line for white in the Saemisch then?

I enjoyed this game:

MNb - Kostanjsek,Z [E29]
em WS/H/187 ICCF, 2009
½-½

[pgn]1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3 c5 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nc6 8.Ne2 b6 9.e4 Ne8 10.O-O Ba6 11.f4 f5 12.Ng3 g6 13.Be3 cxd4 14.Bxd4 Rc8 15.exf5 gxf5 16.Bf2 Na5 17.c5 Bxd3 18.Qxd3 bxc5 19.Nh5 d5 20.Rfe1 Rc6 21.Rab1 Rf7 22.Re3 Kf8 23.Rbe1 Qc8 24.Qe2 Nf6 25.Nxf6 Rxf6 26.Qh5 Qc7 27.Rh3 Nc4 28.Qh4 Rg6 29.Qxh7 Qxh7 30.Rxh7 Rg7 31.Rh6 Kf7 32.a4 Nd2 33.Rd1 Ne4 34.Rxd5 Rb6[/pgn]

MNb wrote on 08/26/11 at 13:32:10:

I enjoyed this game: MNb - Kostanjsek,Z [E29] em WS/H/187 ICCF, 2009 ½-½ 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3 c5 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nc6 8.Ne2 b6 9.e4 Ne8 10.O-O Ba6 11.f4 f5 12.Ng3 g6 13.Be3 cxd4 14.Bxd4 Rc8 15.exf5 gxf5 16.Bf2 Na5 17.c5 Bxd3 18.Qxd3 bxc5 19.Nh5 d5 20.Rfe1 Rc6 21.Rab1 Rf7 22.Re3 Kf8 23.Rbe1 Qc8 24.Qe2 Nf6 25.Nxf6 Rxf6 26.Qh5 Qc7 27.Rh3 Nc4 28.Qh4 Rg6 29.Qxh7 Qxh7 30.Rxh7 Rg7 31.Rh6 Kf7 32.a4 Nd2 33.Rd1 Ne4 34.Rxd5 Rb6

Would your interesting move 14.Bd4: change the evaluation of this important variation? In the past Karpov has done good shop with it - with black, of course. 

I really have no idea. When I had to make the choice I did not like 14.cxd4 at all and just thought 14.Bxd4 more logical. White has to give up a pawn anyway so I wanted to create compensation on the Black squares. Black prevented that by accepting some weaknesses. At any stage I felt confident about my compensation, but I also felt that I lacked winning prospectives.
So I have decided not to play this again in corr. chess. Indeed my results with the normal Rubinstein are better. But I also assumed that someone might try it OTB.

After a long and careful study of the Saemisch and 4.f3 lines I've now decided to take on 4.f3 as my main weapon against the Nimzo.
4.f3 c5 5.d5 is probably (slightly) better for white although black can try to mess things up with b5!? - but as usual it's black taking the greater risks here.
I've done excellent shop in the past with 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bc3:+ 6.bc3: c5 7.cd5: Nd5: 8.dc5: and have score 4/5 with this variation - two draws and three wins. The bishop's pair is a very important asset for white in this variation, especially in the endgame.

Good luck on proving any edge in the messes stemming from 4.f3 c5 5.d5 0-0 6.e4 b5. Black's not the only one needing accurate play, and he's definitely not the only one taking risks.

I've seen an IM recently playing 4. f3 as White and losing more than one game against opponents rated about 200 points lower. I.e. not automatically easy to play for White.

About f3 c5 d5 0-0 e4 b5 line I have won several games where white overextended in an unclear position. An other interesting black options is  1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 c5 5. d5 b5 6. e4 bxc4 7. Bxc4 Nxd5 8. Bxd5 exd5 9. Qxd5 Nc6 with chanses for both sides.

The f3 d5 line is complicated, black can often make the pawn sac permant in return for active piece play. Alaos, Kramnik has played 8 .. f5!?.

An intresting game in f3 Nimzo indian is Anand- Wang Hoa where white saced a piece in for two danegerous pawns and won quickly,

TheGreatOogieBoogie said that Just have something ready for the ...d5 variation of the f3 Nimzo.  Because white has played f3 instead of Nf3 there's no need for the pawn to be on d6 instead and rather reinforce the e4 point too.  :-X
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/repertoire-for-1d4-player?page=2