|
"Why play the Nimzo-Larsen Attack?
Many opening monographs have enthusiastic titles of the form Winning with the ..., and invite the reader to ingest some marvellous system or other and rack up the points - either by encyclopaedic knowledge of main lines or the methodical application of simple strategies.
So let us make it clear, first of all, that White has no advantage in the Nimzo-Larsen. The lines in ECO, for example, conclude mostly in '=' (equal) or 'oo' (unclear), with just a few '+=' (White stands slightly better) and even these '+=' seem optimistic. Nor is the Nimzo-Larsen a 'system' opening in which the first moves are played parrot-fashion regardless of the replies. There are system-like elements in some variations - the plan Bb5, Ne5, f2-f4 in the reversed Nimzo-Indian for instance - but more often White (and Black) can do just about anything. Anyone who likes to win their games in the opening should therefore look elsewhere.
That´s not to say White can´t win, of course. In strategically rich positions, such as arise in the Nimzo-Larsen, the player who brings more to the game - in imagination, technique, spirit, or understanding - will generally have the better chances. 1 b3 also has the usual advantage associated with 'sideline' openings: that opponents are thrown onto their own resources at an early stage. Thus theoretical equality is turned into a practical advantage, whereas a theoretical plus against someone´s pet defence (or counterattack) can easily be outweighed by their superior understanding of the types of position that arise in that opening.
And in aesthetic terms there is an appealing leftfield quality about b2-b3. Kingside fianchetti are so commonplace that some players boast of fianchettoing their king´s bishop in every game, White or Black. The queenside fianchetto is more exotic, and the bishop looks quaint gazing down the long diagonal into the heart of Black´s kingside. Subjective factors do count for something in chess, if only to induce a positive attitude at the board."
(from the Introduction of: Nimzo-Larsen Attack,
by Jacobs&Tait, Everyman London 2001)
* * *
Some comments:
- From my experience most 2200-players (and even 2300-players) are not prepared to 1.b3 . Of course my chessfriends started to prepare when I started to play 1.b3 .
- 1.b3 was played by such giants as Larsen, Fischer, Petrosian, Smsylov, Andersson, Ljubojevic in important games! The assessments in 'theory' of b3 has not changed very much in the last 30 years, what has changed is the attitude to openings: nowadays top10-players like to follow their computer-generated analysis until move 32. - You can find interesting games of Miles, Minasian, Blatny, young Kramnik (two nice wins in 1992!) , and most topically, games of hungarian GM Berkes or polish WGM Zielinska.
- I would agree with Jacobs&Tait that you shouldn´t play 1.b3 to win your game in the opening but I´m not sure about white having no advantage. If you search in a big database, you´ll find 1.e4/1.d4 scoring ~57%, 1.c4/1.Nf3/1.g3 scoring ~56% (but only ~52% without transpositions to 1.d4-openings!) and 1.b3 scoring the same ~52%. Followed by 1.Nc3/1.f4/1.b4 with less than 50% . (My own evaluation but I see no need for discussing these numbers exactly...)
- Of course it´s impossible to analyse a white advantage out of 1.b3 b6 . But I do not believe White to be in Zugzwang so I´ll take the white side of this position! You can compare it with 1.g3 g6 2.Bg2 Bg7 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.O-O O-O 5.d3 d6 6.e4 e5 or 1.e4 e5 2.Be2 Be7: in each case I would prefer White!
tracke
|
Pages: [1] 
Larsen Opening (Read 14031 times)
