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


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.

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.

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?

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.

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


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.

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


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...

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


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