jitb wrote on 06/20/09 at 16:08:21:

In my experience white goes for the main lines (e3 or Qc2 against the Nimzo or for g3 against the qid), but often they arent capable of choosing a proper plan later on or even better choose a bad sideline. The amounts of times I get my opponent into some sort of Hubner setup are countless and more often than not they self-destruct. Similarly with Qc2 I get a lot of e4, which imo is just helping black.

The only problem with Khalifman's Karpov book is that it's impossible to find!  I wish they would do a second run of it.

Scott

BPaulsen wrote on 06/19/09 at 22:34:34:

Imo the CK advance (and to a lesser extent the CK as whole) is the weakest part, but easily fixable as you mention (I used to play Qb6 imo better than a6). But yes the nimzo/qid coverage is quite up to par even now in the most critical lines.

Still it got me wondering how a Karpov in his prime would have held against Kramnik and Topalov in these lines. I am pretty sure he would have held against Kramnik in the catalan and I am even more sure he would keep Topalov at a negative score in the QID (Karpov is one of those very few players who could deal with exchange sacrifices).

Back to the original subject. I think the amount of theory is less than you think, in particular since you used to play the QGD and the ideas of that return in a lot of the QID lines (in particular ideas of the Tartakower).

BPaulsen wrote on 06/19/09 at 20:00:19:

I still use the book a lot and I have never been "shot down" in these lines, even the new improvements for white are pretty minor. The worst that could happen is that you get an almost equal game. Also the consistency of the repertoire makes it very easy to play: You play for c5 against the nimzo and qid against most lines, you only deviate from that plan against Qc2 in the nimzo and some lines in the qid, although even there c5 is the plan.

Willempie wrote on 06/17/09 at 13:52:26:


I'm struck by how many times Willempie and I still recommend Khalifman's Karpov repertoire.  For such a small book, it is a terrific repertoire...

Jitb,

Yes, I've already switched to the Nimzo/QID.  There are a number of good books out there - here are just a few that I like for explanation:

1.  "Chess Explained: Nimzo Indian" (Vera) and "Chess Explained: QID" (Wells).  I really like the majority of the Chess Explained series, and I think these two provide a good look at the main lines.

2.  "Play the Nimzo Indian" (Dearing) and "Play the Queens Indian" (Greet).  These are both repertoire books, and I don't play all of their lines.  Nevertheless, both are great writers and provide interesting commentary.

3.  For me, the most useful books are three of the older ones:  Emms "Easy Guide to the Nimzo Indian."  It's a repertoire book, but it really explains concepts well.  The other Nimzo book that I like is "Mastering the Nimzo Indian" by Kosten.  It categorizes every variation by pawn structures and is quite an instructive book.  Finally, there is a QID book by Mednis, Soltis, and ?? that is one of the best opening books I've ever seen in terms of explaining the important concepts behind the opening. 

I'm sorry if any of the above titles and/or authors are incorrect.  I'm traveling so I don't have my trusty library within reach.

Best,
Scott

I'm in the same boat.  I played/studied the QGD/QGA/Slav for quite a while, but I never really found anything that I liked.  I disliked the passive positions in the QGD, and I didn't like giving up the center in the Slav/QGA.  Although the Nimzo/QID is more "theoretical", I found that there are some fairly thematic lines (...c5 vs. the Nimzo and Bb7 vs. the QID) that give you interesting positions without the concession of some of the other 1.d4 openings. I may change my mind later, but I can't imagine playing anything but the Nimzo/QID vs. 1.d4 for the rest of my career.

Scott

jitb wrote on 06/17/09 at 13:20:56: