TheGreatOogieBoogie said that Just have something ready for the ...d5 variation of the f3 Nimzo.  Because white has played f3 instead of Nf3 there's no need for the pawn to be on d6 instead and rather reinforce the e4 point too. 
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/repertoire-for-1d4-player?page=2

I've seen an IM recently playing 4. f3 as White and losing more than one game against opponents rated about 200 points lower. I.e. not automatically easy to play for White.

After a long and careful study of the Saemisch and 4.f3 lines I've now decided to take on 4.f3 as my main weapon against the Nimzo.
4.f3 c5 5.d5 is probably (slightly) better for white although black can try to mess things up with b5!? - but as usual it's black taking the greater risks here.
I've done excellent shop in the past with 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bc3:+ 6.bc3: c5 7.cd5: Nd5: 8.dc5: and have score 4/5 with this variation - two draws and three wins. The bishop's pair is a very important asset for white in this variation, especially in the endgame.

MNb wrote on 08/26/11 at 13:32:10:

Would your interesting move 14.Bd4: change the evaluation of this important variation? In the past Karpov has done good shop with it - with black, of course. 

MNb wrote on 08/25/11 at 13:47:53:

Right guys if this is the verdict - what do you consider an attractive line for white in the Saemisch then?

Better 8.Ne2 and e4 later. And why not? Ne2 is highly thematic.

Vass wrote on 08/22/11 at 18:03:18:

White is doing allright here after 13.ef6: Nc2+ 14.Ke2 Na1: 15.Bb2 winning the exchange and keeping the bishops pair. I would say in these variations black has equality at most with precise play, so this whole 8.e4!? variation seems perfectly playable for white. I'd say I find 8. cd4: 9.cd4: d5 not very logical since black opens up the position while white has the two bishops, and helps white to get rid of his doubled pawns.

NeverGiveUp wrote on 08/22/11 at 09:53:37:

If that is what you mean...then don't!

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).

John Emms used the name "Open Samisch" in the "Easy Guide to the Nimzo-Indian" (Presumably 4.a3 is the "closed" Samisch.) Indeed if you google "open samisch" there are a few hits suggesting that this nomenclature is not unique to Emms.

I dont consider myself an expert on these positions, but I will make one more post. Some liens in pgn that I attached had some errors where I blindly followed book and not even Houdini discovered the error sa tfirst sight, but there was better moves for both sides.

If black wants to play something that that is more soild than the pgn line I posted black can also play

[Event "Blitz:5'+2""]
[Site "Eskilstuna"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "Houdini 1.5 w32"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "32"]
[TimeControl "300+2"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4.
f3 c5 5. d5 O-O 6. e4 d6 7. Nge2 (7. Bd3 b5 8. Nge2 (8. dxe6 Bxe6 9. cxb5 a6
$44) 8... Nbd7 9. dxe6 fxe6 10. cxb5 Ne5 $13 11. Bf4 (11. O-O a6 12. Be3 d5 13.
exd5 exd5 14. Bg5 Nxd3 15. Qxd3 Bb7 $44) 11... Nxd3+ 12. Qxd3 d5 13. exd5 exd5
14. O-O d4 15. Ne4 Nxe4 16. fxe4 Be6 $44) 7... b5 8. Nf4 {Shirov} (8. dxe6 Bxe6
9. cxb5 a6 $44) (8. Ng3 Bb7) (8. a3 Ba5) 8... e5 9. Nfe2 Nh5 {
unmentioned by Yakovich} 10. g4 (10. cxb5 f5 $36 {Marin}) 10... Qh4+ 11. Kd2
Nf4 12. Nxf4 exf4 13. cxb5 a6 14. bxa6 Bxa6 15. Kc2 Bxc3 16. bxc3 Nd7 $44 *

Thanks for the input. I will have a look at it

Some quick lines in b5 line if anyone is interested. Quick look indicateds that blacks position is very playalbe. I can not give the entire chapter but they seems to improve over Yakovich at several points. I dont have Yakovich book myself but they have references to it in the article.

Klick wrote on 03/01/11 at 16:31:45:

O.K., maybe this was another unanswerable question of mine. There had been many.
Then I'll try to be more exact.

How do you think the concrete variations following 5.d5 Nh5 are good for Black?
Or is it better to strive for a Benoni-type position?
(Even if it is a strong reply, I don't like Klick's suggestion, the look of the Blumenfeld-like 5..b5 whatsoever.)

I hope I have not asked this yet... 

I am constructing my Nimzo repertoire.
4.f3 c5 is my choice as Black
(because I prefer 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 c5 6.f3 Nc6 7.e4 d6 over 6..d5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 etc)
but I don't know much about it.

What lines should I pay the most attention to? (any recommended model games?)

It's been my experience in CC that 4...c5 is vastly superior to 4...d5 against the 4. f3 variation. Here's an example of my own usage of 4...c5 to reach a winning endgame against my CC opponent on ICCF:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 O-O 6.e4 d6 7.Bd2 exd5 8.cxd5 Nh5 9.Qe2 f5 10.O-O-O Re8 11.Nh3 Nd7 12.Qe3 Nhf6 13.Ng5 Nb6 14.Bb5 Re7 15.Qf4 h6 16.Ne6 Bxe6 17.dxe6 a6 18.Bd3 fxe4 19.Nxe4 Bxd2+ 20.Rxd2 Rxe6 21.Nxf6+ Qxf6 22.Qxf6 Rxf6 23.Be4 Ra7 24.Rhd1 Nc8 25.Rd5 b5 26.Kb1 Kf7 27.g4 Ke7 28.g5 hxg5 29.Rxg5 Kf8 30.Rh5 Ne7 31.Rh8+ Kf7 32.Rd8 Nf5 33.Rg1 Ke7 34.Rg8 Ke6 35.Re8+ Re7 36.Bxf5+ Rxf5 37.Re1+ Re5 38.Rxe5+ dxe5 39.Ra8 Rf7 40.Rxa6+ Kd5 41.Ra3 Kd4 42.Rb3 g5 43.Kc2 c4 44.Rxb5 Rxf3 45.Rb8 Rf2+ 46.Kc1 g4

I've got a won endgame position after the 46th move. Below is another ICCF game where I have white and have reached a winning position quite quickly versus one of the 4...d5 lines:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 O-O 7.cxd5 exd5 8.e3 Re8 9.Bd3 b6 10.Ne2 c5 11.O-O Ba6 12.Ng3 Bxd3 13.Qxd3 Nc6 14.Bb2 c4 15.Qe2 h5 16.e4 dxe4 17.fxe4 h4 18.Nh5 Nxe4 19.Qxc4 Qd7 20.Rf4 Na5 21.Qd3 f5 22.Raf1 Rf8 23.Rxh4 Rae8 24.c4 g5 25.Rh3 g4 26.Rh4 Qc7 27.d5 Nxc4 28.d6

I've in fact reached many winning and nearly winning positions when black opts for 4...d5, while 4...c5 leaves white with a lack-luster middlegame battle. I just don't understand why d5 remains the 'main' line when c5 is clearly better in meeting the 4. f3 variation.

Everyone is quoting Yakovich here but a more recent source os Moskalenko's "revolutionalise" book where he spends many pages analysing 4.f3. If i remember correctly in the last pages he gives some variations as unclear without tring too much for White but i would expect from you at least a discussion of his ideas.

Btw, Kramnik played 4.f3 with White yesterday in Wijk aan Zee!

4 .. Nc6 5 e4 certainly isn't obviously better - it gets hit by 5.. d5 when Yakovich gives 6 cd ed 7 e5 Ng8 intending to send it round to f5 after a subsequent f4.

On some level 4 .. o-o is much the most annoying response. I know 5 a3 etc is OK but if white can't go 5 e4 then (and its not obvious that he can effectively) they why on earth did he play 4 f3?!

Oh, I don't know.  That big fat f5 square is there.

Yes, I make two opening books. One with all games, and one with 2200+ rating required from one or both players. It's interesting to see which lines start to fail for one side or the other, and how the main lines eventually reach a dead drawn position. The Sicilian defense, for example, is mapped to death.

Yes, ICCF has many packages as they continue to add game archives. I'd been just combining archive packages into one large file, and then I make a custom opening book based on the games in my combined file. I prefer not to include anything older than 2007 as that's generally the year multi-core computers and deep engines exploded onto the scene.

bragesjo wrote on 10/04/10 at 13:22:01:


Which I was prepared for just in case. My database culled from ICCF shows white enjoying a 60% share of the advantage in that line, though there are some rather drawish continuations black can adopt.

At any rate, 4. f3 was just a bit of a fling for me. I don't think I will be using it regularly.

About a3 Be7 line, I think that after e4, dxe4 fxe4 e5! has been recommended for black. However I am at work so I dont have access to a board or engine.

Markovich wrote on 04/16/10 at 19:15:16:


At least one GM has admitted to it to my knowledge, so it's not hard to believe it goes on in the lesser ranks. Not much of a claim when at least one titled player does it.

Quote:


4. f3 is definitely a good practical choice for that reason.

Quote:


In CC, correct me if I'm wrong, databases are okay to use, no? That usually makes it harder to not figure out the right moves, if so.

[quote]... the game appears in the chesslive.de database ...[/quote]

Hasn't this site -- http://www.chesslive.de/ -- gone defunct? Is there a new one?? If so could you post the link?

Yeah, I totally agree. When I played 1. d4 exlusively, I relied on 4. f3, and to be honest, scored heavily with it - I'd estimate around 80% OTB. I think that in the main line, despite White's embarrassing tripled c-pawns, the extra pawn and two bishops make a strong impression, especially against weak players who don't understand the plans.

There seem to be a bizillion ways for Black to fight against 4.f3, all of them on the borderline of validity.  The only one I fully respect is 4...d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.cxd5 Nxd5.  But White has to be completely on his toes in a wide range of other cases, and I haven't always been successful in my struggle to prove White's advantage.  In general though, I revel in White's pawn center and, often as well, in his two bishops.

I understand that - but there's surely a place for both in an ideal world. Maybe it's time to learn Russian - I won't say any more!

Feel free to transfer this topic to the general chess section. (I didn't even know there was such a section - sorry.)

Whenever I ask about a main line, no-one responds. Whenever I ask about a sideline, there is always a response.
Perhaps instead of chesspub.com this site should be called sidelinecity.com? I know the moderator of the e4e5 thread pointed out that hardly anyone seems to discuss the mainline Spanish there. Doesn't anyone study main lines?
They're main lines for a reason: because they provide the richest content, tactically and strategically, i.e. chess at its most complex and stimulating.

Normally I do check, but Yakovich is a source that I have trusted so much before, I allowed myself to become lazy.

This doesn't have anything to do with this thread, but it does concern a line of 4.f3. I'm curious about this line:
4.a3 Bc3 5.bc3 d5 6.f3 c6 7.e4 (7.e3 is Azmaiparashvili-Macieja 2008 - I know Macieja is a specialist in the NID so I assume he isn't playing this by accident) 7...de4 8.fe4 e5
9.Nf3 Qa5 10.Qd3 Ne4!? 11.Ne5 (11.Qe4 is unclear but B seems okay after 11...Qc3 12.Kf2 Qa1 13.Qe5 Be6)
11...Qc3 12.Qc3 Nc3 13.Bd3 (transposing into some analysis by Volkov) "with compensation" - Black's game isn't easy with the offside Nc3. Maybe 13...f6 14.Nf3 Na4 (14...Na6 15.a4 Nb4 16.Kd2 wins a piece) - does W have just enough for the pawn or more? And how does B play this?

Another line here is 11...0-0!? 12.Bb2 Qb6 13.Rb1 Bf5!? when 14.g4 looks good.

MilenPetrov wrote on 05/01/09 at 08:42:16:


You may have - the first move that catches my eye is 19. h4!, and after checking it over quite quickly, it looks as though Black has some problems to solve here.

In the line ) after 19...Bd7 20.Bxc5 bxc5 21.Qb2 Rf4 22.Qa2 Re8 23.Ng5 Rxf1 24.Rxf1 Qxe5 i do not see any reason why Black should be worse... But it is just a quick look at the position. Maybe I missed something...

Markovich wrote on 04/28/09 at 01:45:13:

you play d5 twice as black and capture on c5 as white without black playing c5; so I guess typo

about your idea; looks like something I wouldn't mind playing as white although the  position looks messy and unballanced but that seems the be the general idea after 4 f3