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

And you are not afraid of 9... d5! 

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

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.. 

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


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

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." 
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. 

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

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:

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. 

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


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.

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


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} *

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).