Hello,

Not sure what to do against the Zurich since hardly encounter it, and also not had much practical experience with playing 4. Qc2 though i follow theoretical developments here closely. In blitz i rather enjoy 4.. Nc6 5. Nf3 d6 6. Bg5 h6 7. Bd2 and then 0-0-0 with possible h4/Ng5 or g4, though White can play positionally too. Not sure if this is good longterm though.

sometimes it seems slightly strange to me that 4. f3/8. dxc5 is not half as highly regarded as the 7. Bc4 exchange Grunfeld, where White also plays dxc5 for an advantage (Black even has a fianchettoed dark-squared bishop!), and nowadays White plays dxc5 in the 7. Bc4 grunfeld against the conventional wisdom even when Black hasn't played a6 (e.g. the latest 10.. Qc7 11. Rc1 Rd8 12. Bf4 Qd7 13. dxc5). For sure i can see in the nimzo White's kingside bits are harder to develop, but he can whip the light squared bishop to b5 to exchange off one of the knights and then tuck his king on f2 which is safe enough and is Black's faster development worth a dark-squared bishop!? Perhaps it seems. I see Mr. Cox has some games in Chesspub around last year where his results weren't so good, but then haven't improvements for White been found afterwards? Recently Ivanchuk won two nice games in the 4. f3 line at European Club Cup 06 against Prusikin (featuring the famed 11... Qc7) and Sokolov (Rozentalis' defence 6... c6)., and its been making me look at 4. f3 again.

hello, Cox's book is great for the critical 4.Qc2 d5 lines, but the other parts didn't seem as enlightening to me, still good and competent, just not as brilliant.  4... c5 is alittle bit too sketchy to me. and recommendation in 4. Qc2 0-0 9. Ne2 Nbd7 10. Qd3 Ba6 11. b4 isn't supposed to be so good at the moment despite big K's endorsement, think 13... Rb8 line given, as in Rowson-Beliavsky, is quite annoying, this was covered in 9. Ne2 survey in CBM a couple of years ago. So Whites nowadays prefer 11. Nc3 squeezing endgame edge with Atalik/Sokolov's 15. Rd1 (e.g.Shirov-Naiditsch), but that's maybe a little too subtle for some people!? Finally, is following Bareev-Timman in the 4... Nc6 Zurich really best?! 

An easy question !

4 Qc2 is fairly good against most lines- see John's book on 1d4  for introductions as to the plans.

4e3 is pretty useful and I think should be played more often by the GMs as it was in the past.

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/11/06 at 10:59:21:


This is what me attracts most, especially as White still can play x.a3 and offer a transposition to the Sämisch.
But what about the flexible move order 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 c5 ? Black keeps both options open, the Hübner and the main line with 6...d5.

Does 6 Qa4 not leave White with good chances of obtaining an opening advantage in your line, Uberdeker?!

As to the original question (clearly a man who needs my book Starting Out 1 d4, but anyway….) there is no variation against the Nimzo which will really give White attacking chances every time: Markovich is right that a3 is as near as anything, but it does lead to fairly closed positions, which might not suit, and of course as he says is not well regarded by theory.

The trouble with 4 f3 is the main line with Karpov’s 11…Qc7, which is very solid for Black. Otherwise it’s ideal. And with 4 Qc2 it’s mainly 4….00. I’m not wild about 5 e4, but of course White has ways to obtain a fighting game.

I agree with the warning about 4 Bg5 that it leads to very blocked positions. Definitely playable but a very different proposition from 1 e4.

4 e3 can be moulded into an aggressive line, I would have thought. Meet the Hubner with 6 Nge2 and play those IQP positions. Same with the Karpov stuff.

Nf3 and …Bb7; Bg5 or …c5; g3 is possible, certainly. The latter does not lead to particularly attacking positions, though.

I fear that if there was a good answer everyone would be doing it…….

Klick wrote on 10/09/06 at 18:48:44:


I have the vague impression that that Nimzo line (in which White can put his knight on e2) should be more promising for White than the Huebner variation (in which it has gone to f3).  A game Kasparov-Beliavsky from their candidates match in 1983 is given in an old 1. d4 repertoire book by Raymond Keene as promising for White, though it seems that Kasparov gave an improvement for Black leading to an unclear position.

That 3. Bg5 thing is sometimes called the Seirawan Indian, since he played it several times back in the 80s (according to one database, he scored a win and three draws playing it against Short, Portisch and Andersson [twice]).

just in case you are wondering:
4. a3 Bxc3 5. bxc3 Ne4 6. Qc2 f5 7. Nh3!? can be met by 7... d6 8. f3 Nf6, where Black is ready to block with e5 nimzo/classical-dutch-style. In fact, this was contested in the 1960 world championship between Botvinnik and Tal:

[Event "World Championship 23th"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1960.03.15"]
[Round "16"]
[White "Botvinnik,Mikhail"]
[Black "Tal,Mihail"]
[Result "1/2"]
[Eco "E24"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 Ne4 6.Qc2 f5 7.Nh3 d6 8.f3 Nf6
9.e4 fxe4 10.fxe4 e5 11.Nf2 0-0 12.Be2 c5 13.dxe5 dxe5 14.0-0 Nc6 15.Bg5 Qe8 16.Nd1 Qg6
17.Bxf6 Rxf6 18.Ne3 Rxf1+ 19.Rxf1 Be6 20.Qd3 Rd8 21.Nd5 Rf8 22.Nc7 Rxf1+ 23.Bxf1 Qf7 24.Qd6 Bc8
25.Na6 Qf4 26.Qd5+ Kh8 27.Qxc5 Be6 28.Nc7 Bg8 29.Qf2 Qxe4 30.Ne8 Qg6 31.Qf8 e4 32.Nd6 Ne5
33.c5 Nd3 34.Nf5 Ne5 35.Ne7 Qf7 36.Qxf7 Bxf7 37.Kf2 Bc4 38.Bxc4 Nxc4 39.c6 bxc6 40.Nxc6 a5
41.a4  1/2-1/2