You have not missed anything. But Carsten Hansen's book on the Rubinstein Variation from 2002 is a big help if you want to combat the NID with 4.e3. Of course there still be a lot of work to be done by yourself, but since when is that a bad thing? Especially if the prospect is finding ideas for your own?

Antillian wrote on 06/10/09 at 12:31:46:


If I had to give only one recommendation, it would be for 4.e3, mainly because of its flexibility, as I mentioned in my previous post in this thread.

MNb has stated before that he likes the Hubner Variation as Black against the Rubinstein, but White can avoid this with 5.Nge2 or 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.Nge2. And against the move-order 4...0-0 5.Bd3 c5, White should consider 6.d5!?, as played by Korchnoi against Karpov in Baguio City. However, there is nothing wrong with 6.Nge2, which is certainly not 'completely innocent', as the 6...d5 7.cd5 cd4 8.ed4 Nd5 9.Bc2!? system (delaying castling in favour of Qd3, h4 and a kingside attack) shows.

Generally speaking, the Bd3/Nge2 system is the most tactically aggressive, the Nge2 system is the most positional, and the Bd3/Nf3 is both tactical and positional depending on how both sides play. 

Finally, if White wishes to play the Samisch against the Nimzo, I would recommend that he does so via. an 4.e3 move order, e.g. only playing the Samisch against 4...0-0 and meeting 4...c5 and 4...b6 with something different. 

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 06/10/09 at 07:26:20:


I can see the logic of this approach. Teaching 4. a3 is the most effective way of illustrating the core  bishops pair versus pawn structure imbalance. But overall 4. e3 is the most instructive IMHPO because of the richness and diversity of ideas. You learn about every possible type of QP pawn structure, pawn transformations and the associated plans.

Antillian wrote on 06/08/09 at 12:03:15:

Really? After 3 em. games with 4.e3 I only saw confirmed what I already suspected: Black better postpones ...d5 a bit and plays ...0-0 and ...c5 first; 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 c5 6.Nge2 is completely innocent; if 6.Nf3 is best White cannot avoid the Normal System; so now I try 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 transposing to the Sämisch.
Can't say this shattered my views on the question 3.Nc3 or 3.Nf3.

I would say if nothing else, that  4. e3  is certainly the most instructive to learn.

He has explained that: the pieces end up on similar squares. He was obviously thinking of the Queen's Bishop going to f4 or g5, which of course is not possible after 4.e3. Another question is if I agree with this argument.

"Thus 4. Qc2 is an ideal piratical weapon at the non master level"

Does "piratical" mean attacking with cutlass, eye-patch and a parrot in tow?  

I agree that the 4.Qc2 line is a more natural choice for starting in the NID as it is more akin to QGD that 1.d4 players will be used to. Not the same of course, but a few similarities - and a few pieces ending up on similar squares. This should help the non-master player as they'll have some prior idea of what to do.

Aren't all QID lines either = or += leaning towards = ?  I believe the Petrosian QID is a good way to play for a win, and until the recent popularity of the Qc2/d5 gambit in the 4.g3 system, I kept saying I thought 4.a3 was a better way to fight for an advantage than 4.g3. Now my opinion is that both are good ways.

After 4.a3, I see 4...Ba6 about as often as 4...Bb7, and I'm comfortable facing them both. I can agree about the += leaning towards = evaluation, but I'm satisfied with that against such a solid opening as the QID. I wouldn't say the evaluation is different in the Nimzo.

As for the Nimzo, I disagree that 4.Qc2 is a harder start than 4.e3 or 4.a3. True, I can't really say I have much experience from the White side of the Nimzo, but I find the positions arising after 4.Qc2 easier to understand than the others. It's hard to say what will suit you, though, as the different 4th moves lead to quite different kinds of positions, and none of them really resemble the 4.a3 QID.