The Englund Gambit book was written way back in 1988 (it's sourced in the Chess Cafe article as [3]), the Chess Cafe article is much more up-to-date.   
The book gives a much more detailed coverage of the Englund complex but there's only a few pages on lines that can arise from 1 e4 Nc6, as they're hardly the most critical ways of meeting the Englund.  I don't think it's worth getting it just for the Nimzo coverage, plus you'd find it hard to get a copy anyway.

Bucker gave 6 Bd3 Bc5 or 6...Bb4 in his book, with some advantage for White in both cases.  6...d5 looks much more promising IMO.

I'll have to take a closer look at 5 Nc3 later, it may well be White's best choice.  In the analogous line of the Englund, White's best move is certainly 5 Nc3 rather than 5 Nxe5, when Black's best chance is reckoned to be 5...Nf6, but still with an edge for White with accurate play.  Maybe, with this in mind, in the Nimzo line Black could consider 5...Bb4 6 Bd2 Ne7 or c6 covering the d5-square, but I'll have to check it.

Edit:  Yes, checking over with Fritz, I think 5...Bb4 6 Bd2 Ne7 is the best plan, though White should retain a slight edge.  So 5 Nc3 is preferable to 5 Nxe5 in this line too, with the queen on f6 rather than e7.
4 Nf3 Bb4+ 5 c3 Nxf3+ 6 Qxf3 Bc5 looks alright as well IMO, though still slightly better for White.

Thus, I may have to reconsider my earlier statements- 4 Nf3 should give an edge as well, though with playable positions for Black.

What happens after 3.de5 Ne5 4.Nf3 Qf6 and now 5.Nc3!? If 5...Nf3 6.Qf3 Qf3 7.gf3, White seems to have a small edge, since the doubled f-pawns are not a disadvantage and White has better control of the centre. 

Black can also develop his king's bishop with 5...Bb4 or 5...Bc5, but 5...Bc5 6.Nd5 and 5...Bb4 6.Bd2 with the idea of Nd5 does not look entirely convincing to me. 

It looks like White should be able to retain a small pull after the simple 5.Nc3. Sure, Black's position is solid with no major weaknesses, but White has more active pieces and his position is certainly easier to play.

Thanks for the kind words, MNb.  

I think the reason Toppy was making a bit of a rod for his own back here was that issuing a categorical judgement in vehement terms when that judgement is unsupported can never be helpful. Appreciable desire to withhold some of one’s own personal analysis is something else and, as Matemax says, a question of sometimes subtle give-and-take and individual discretion.

Nudging the conversation ever so gently back towards the Nimzo, perhaps we can agree that there’s sometimes a necessary tension in chess between two opposing attitudes to more “offbeat” (a term that I think needs deconstructing!) openings: (1) proper wariness and even distrust, on the grounds that according to all the usual understandings the “offbeat” idea ought to be inferior; and (2) a Lasker-like intellectual skepsis/suspicion of “general rules” and of dogmatism. Both of these (most characteristically the first, perhaps) can easily get “moralized” into something like a dogma if one isn’t careful – perhaps the two simply need to exist together in a state of balance. I think also that (1) needs to be distinguished from the sometimes related, but essentially separate, question of whether a particular standard of player should be playing a particular non-standard opening – a fascinating question worthy of a thread all of its own …

My own experience of the Nimzo is restricted mainly to the Kevitz-Mikenas line, and since I play just at club level I meet 3 d5 far more often than 3 de, meaning that I end up with lots of great KID- or Tango-like positions. These however are by no means always easy to play, partly because it’s so easy for me to think I’ve a promising or even winning kingside attack when the position is in fact just equal, and I’ve found learning this “lesson” highly instructive and beneficial for my chess more generally.

The way I see the K-M, after 3 de(!) Ne5 White has three tries. After 4 Nc3 Bc5, whether White chooses 5 f4 Nc6 or 5 Bf4 d6, at my level at least the positions seem to offer plenty of chances for both sides. Of course I appreciate 4 f4 might give White hopes of a small advantage, but I find the plan of pressuring e4 congenial (after both Knight retreats) and it’s not always easy for White to keep control. After 4 Nf3 I’ve looked mainly at 4 …Bb4 5 c3 Nf3 6 Nf3 Bc5. These positions resemble those of the 4 …Bb4 Scotch, and while Black can be a bit cramped, again I wonder how easy it is for White to prove all that much. Looking at the game Solomon-Miles yesterday, I did for a while think I’d refuted this line! The game went 7 Bc4 Qf6 8 Bf4 d6 9 Nd2 Ne7 10 0-0-0 0-0. Here it looks to me that 11 e5!? is a grim ending for Black. On reflection, both 10 …Nc6 and 10 …Ng6 struck me as improvements. There might be quite a few of those (for both sides) lurking in the Nimzo – hope that could be a stimulus to looking here at some concrete lines!


PS. I'm entirely with Toppy in his statement that (1) it's good to challenge existing "theory" and (2) a position is certainly not necessarily equal just because a book says it is!

Yes, some of the criticism levelled at me is justified.

I drop hints challenging established opening theory, but resist the temptation to lay out the full extent of my findings, simply because sometimes I would prefer a chance to use some of them otb first before revealing all, especially when the ideas are fresh.

Sometimes when a posting on the forum coincides with my work, exuberance gets the better of me and I find myself posting something, only to regret it later.

The reason why I ignore many of your post MNB, is because everytime I present some new idea and attempt to explain the reasoning behind it with a sample line, you in turn respond with a continuation of Fritz or other engine in an attempt to debunk it, with a comment attached asking me to elaborate further, and on and on it goes. At some point one must exercise judgement and evaluate a position for yourself, rather than simply trading variation after variation, ad infinitum as I once made the mistake of doing with Belgrade Gambit fanatic Bruce Monson, tournament praxis will take care of the rest. I noticed you also did something similiar with Eric Prie in one the Trompowsky threads and before that with Andrew Martin.

For the most part my opinions on chess are always considered ones, and my track record here despite comments to the contrary are usually on point.

Objectively, I maintain that the Nimzovich is a very difficult opening for Black to play, but that will not stop players from playing it. Black may do well against players who have never bothered to study it or take it seriously, but other than that I would recommend to play something else.   

One must be aware that many read these forums, contributing little, but copy and save all the interesting analysis posted. There really is nothing wrong with that, but at the same time one should not always expect a contributor to give everything away. I did that once in a Dragon thread when challenged by Golubev and others, and in order to establish my credibility I laid it all on the line. The upshot from that Dragon thread, was that I indeed established my credibility, but the downside was that my analysis became well known and published all over the place before I got the chance to benefit from it in tournament play.

I find that the posters here place to much importance on what is written in Openings books, half of which can be successfully challenged when held up to close scrutiny. 

The written word often gives the illusion of authority, that is, until another author comes along with a more compelling opposing view.

Toppy    

 

Once again I’m afraid I find this distinctly unconvincing, TopNotch!

In mentioning (in the other thread) “refutation”, I was, reasonably enough, meaning proof of a clear, or serious, White advantage (not a won position). It’d be absurd to suggest that your “unsustainable rubbish” claim implied a lesser White plus than that!

You speak of your “considered” opinion, but it looks to me that considered is just what it wasn’t. By contrast, Bucker, and SWJediknight, appear to have really considered this opening, and their view differs sharply from yours. I’m sure you could show some strong ideas for White if you wanted to and if you do no one would be more interested in looking at them objectively than I, but so far, what reason might any unprejudiced person think you’ve given them for endorsing your evaluation rather than Bucker's?

In mentioning “effort” in looking at 8 …c6 you make exactly my point.  It seems you haven’t put effort in to analysing this (certainly very interesting!) line yourself, and similarly I assume with the other “directions” you mention, yet that doesn’t prevent you from condemning the opening in wild terms! Even if Bucker’s careful researches didn’t exist, I’m afraid my term for this would be “prejudice”!

I also struggle to understand your comment about me and too many pies. On the contrary -- most of the time I spend on chess openings is spent looking at quite a small range of systems, but I don’t believe tunnel vision is good for one’s chess. One problem I [i]have[/i] had in the past is that I’ve been prone to look too much at my Black openings to the detriment of the White ones, but I’m not nearly as unbalanced now as I once was!

Quote:

Careful, TopNotch, you're in danger of sounding just a bit patronising there!  

No offence taken, but it's a pretty flimsy smokescreen for your inability to substantiate your hyperbolic claim about the Nimzo! Now we learn that the real problem with the opening is that lesser players (undefined!) shouldn't play it regularly -- very different from it being "unsustainable rubbish"! I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more in any case. Why should I feel the Nimzo is more dangerous than, say, a sharp Najdorf line, or teaches me less about chess, esp. since I've played a fair old range of openings in my time?

In the Reversed Traxler line, what about 8 ...c6? It'd take me hours to work out what happens here. Maybe Black even gets to sustain his rubbish!

Michael Ayton wrote on 05/04/08 at 08:13:33:


Tony Miles also beat Karpov with 1...a6, so it is fair to say that Miles was a very creative and strong GM, it is also fair to say that not everyone is Miles and lesser players would be better served concentrating on how to play normal logical chess.

When one becomes more proficient in handling typical positions, pawn structures and middlegame situations, then it is ok to indulge in this sort of tight rope walking from time to time.

Master the Nuts and Bolts stuff first, then you can experiment with as much weird stuff as you like later. 

Michael it seems to me that you have your finger in too many pies 
at the same time, this is never a good thing and often leads to confusion and an inability to assimilate relevant material properly.

Try getting a handle on just a couple of things at a time rather than flitting all over the place endlessly.

Tops

Postscript: Yes Matemax, that is the idea, except that this is a much better version than in the Traxler.

Michael Ayton wrote on 05/04/08 at 13:18:35:


I quite like for White 1 e4 Nc6 2 d4 e5 3 dxe5 Nxe5 4 Nc3 Bc5 5 Nf3!? (Nigel Davies prefers 5.f4) although I have never seen a published analysis of it, it looks quite promising for White. 

Toppy