Ender wrote on 11/02/09 at 22:59:47:


I am quite late to the party, but after some time I give this repertoire a go.

1. About the 1.c4 e5 2.g3 problem

These lines are popular and the Bc5 lines are depressing. 2 Options: 1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 (2.Nc3 e5; 2.Nf3 b6) c6 going for the Reti line in the book. Anyway missing in the book is the Slav with g3, but you need to add that anyway for black.

2nd option is the recently fashionable 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 h6!? putting the ball back in whites court and doing a semiuseful wating move.

2. Missing Line

Caro-Kann Fantasy Variation

3. Under a severe cloud

The piece sac line after 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nc3 e6 5.g3 Bg6 6.Nge2 Ne7 7.Nf4 c5 8.h4 cd 9.Nb5 Nec6 10.h5 Be4 11.f3 Bf3 12.Qf3 Ne5 given unclear ist more or less refuted by 13.Qf2!

Still unclear but very risky is 11. -a6! 12.fe (12.Nd6 Bd6 13.cd g5!) ab 13.ed ed 14.Bg2 (14.h6!? Nd7!) Bb4=

The main line 6. -c5 - while a lot of theory - is rock solid, so the Nc3 system ist not played much. An interesting alternative for Black imho is 6. -f6.

I've looked further and I think this 12.Qf3 move looks quite dangerous for Black: 4...0-0 5.Bd3 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.0-0 Bxc3 8.bxc3 d6 9.e4 e5 10.d5 Ne7 11.Nh4 h6 12.Qf3 Ng6 13.Nf5 and 13...Bxf5 seems to be a mistake due to 14.Qxf5 (Tomashevsky won a quick 32 move game against Michiels in EU-ch 2013) and Sokolov thinks White is better due to his space advantage on kingside and he can continue to improve his position whereas Black has no counterplay. Instead he offers a line 13...Nh7 14.Rb1 Ne7 15.Nxe7+ Qxe7 16.Qg3 Kh8 17.f4 and at end says it's complex where Black tries to get counterplay with ...b5 and White goes for the king with later h4 g4 g5 etc. I get the impression Sokolov thinks White is just better though, it's hard to see Black's counterplay on queenside leading to much whereas White's going for mate.

I think a key difference with the 4...c5 move-order is White doesn't have time for this knight manoeuvre to h4 then f5 followed by Qf3 : 

4...c5 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.Nf3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 d6 8.e4 e5 9.d5 Ne7 10.Nh4 h6 now 11.f4 Ng6! Spassky-Fischer 11.f3/0-0/g3 Khalifman's ...g5 recommendation seems to be in fine shape but there's other options for Black, point is Black gets active counterplay.

Basically as far as I can tell an early castles is just bad for Black in the Huebner unless you're satisfied with Sokolov's 13...Nh7 plan or can find something better along the way. I think these ...g5 ideas in delayed castles are important deterrents against early Nh4's for Black to get active counterplay. I expect I'm missing something but that's the way it seems to me atm.

Regarding 7.d5 in castles early lines I agree Kasparov's idea with 7...d6 and exchanging minors on f5 looks like the easiest way for Black to equalise in that line. Problem is in the mainline with 12.Qf3. 

We've discussed Huebner move orders on the forums before.  In the old days, early ...0-0 lines were considered inaccurate for getting a Huebner (I'm thinking of Mednis, Pliester, Khalifman, Taimanov, and others).  I don't play these lines any more for either side, but nowadays I don't think there's much of a distinction, for instance Sokolov's book on the 4.e3 Nimzo only discusses the early castling move order for getting into a Huebner, though if I remember correctly (I don't own the book), he doesn't discuss early move order issues much.   

I don't know what has changed to make the early castling lines fine for Black, though.

Very different lines 5 .. Ne4 simplifies rather, but the b6/c5 set up makes for a straight up brawl in a lot of lines, with some very strangely placed pieces.

If you like the feel of that 5.. cd 6 ed etc line then play it. Not talking big advantages here, mostly small ones. Often a matter of taste really, so what you'd be happy with.

Both sides get huge amounts of move order/set up options in this stuff. Bewildering even.

For the repertoire - 5...0-0 is selected because the famous "Karpov Nimzo-Indian" requires Nbd7.  All Khalifman was trying to do was get black to be able to play a famous Karpov line.

Aside from that, not much of a difference.

Something I should mention in regards to the book - the recommendation against 5. Nge2 doesn't suffice for equality. An interesting try (that I've been using) is 5...b6 6. a3 Ba5 7. Rb1 Na6, where I'm not sure white can prove anything.

Also, the Caro-Kann Advance recommendation in the Short complex is lacking, given white's best (8. Na3) goes unmentioned. Here's it's probably better to follow Wells' book and pick a continuation to your liking.

Those are the only two really glaring issues.

To answer my own question, I am not completely sure, but I think that the main reason for choosing 5..0-0 as the repertoire-move is that this Nimzo and the Caro-Kann Panov (with 5..e6 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Bd3!? dxc4 8.Bxc4 0-0 9.0-0 b6) move-orders can meet after 6.Nf3 d5 7.0-0 dxc4 8.Bxc4 cxd4 9.exd4 b6, which couldn't happen with a knight already on c6.

Otherwise, it would have been wiser to include 5..Nc6 instead, 
when upon 
- 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 0-0 we reach Chapter 7, a fundamental position of the Saemisch (w/ 6.e3), on page 67.
- 6.Nf3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 d6 play immediately transposes into Chapter 8, the initial position of the Blockade System on page 71.
- 6.Ne2 cxd4 7.cxd4 d5 (most sample games for "5.Bd3 0-0 6.Ne2" (page 54 - b1)) actually start this way)
                       * 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.0-0 0-0 
                       we are nowhere else than "5..0-0 6.Ne2 d5 7.cxd5 cxd4 8.exd4 Nxd5 9.0-0 Nc6" (p.55 - b1a)).            
                       * 8.0-0 dxc4 9.Bxc4 0-0 
                       we arrive at "5..0-0 6.Ne2 d5 7.0-0 cxd4 8.exd4 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nc6" (p.56 - b1b)).

That is, on move 9 the lines (..Nc6 & ..0-0), which split on move 5, meet again--provided White has nothing better at his disposal on the way... (That's something I couldn't yet tell due to my lacking knowledge about Nimzo-Indian plans. )
                       
So, I conclude for the time being that we could happily live on without "5..0-0 6.Nf3 d5 7.0-0 dxc4 8.Bxc4 cxd4 9.exd4 b6" (b2)) (when the b8N can still develop anywhere depending on circumstances) , which is the only independent line that 5..Nc6 rules out.
(But why does the book let White take the opportunity to reach b2) if that means independent lines, thus more study for us...? Maybe because the Caro-Kann Panov (w/ 5..e6) is also in the repertoire book.)
This would also mean that if you don't play the C-K, or you react the Panov Attack some other way, then you can choose 5..Nc6 and still remain in the repertoire, without being bothered about 5..0-0 6.Nf3. 
                 
What have I missed? (where White could exploit 5..Nc6 and drive us out of the repertoire for his advantage)

HoemberChess wrote on 01/09/10 at 20:36:52:

The main difference is that the knight can still move to e2, leaving the f-pawn free to move (the main point why the Hubner works so well is that a quick f4 is not possible). Still I think there is nothing wrong with 5..Nc6 just dont et your hopes up for a Hubner.

HoemberChess wrote on 01/08/10 at 21:13:29:


I played the French at that time, so there was no difference between starting 1...e6 and 1...Nf6. It was also was easier on preparation given I didn't need to know anything versus the Tromp, even if that's not a big deal.

Aagard probably has a point. I know, personally, there's not much point knowing really deep theory on the NID. Provided you know maybe the first 8-10 moves (not much to ask for at all these days) in the key variations you can usually safely play it from there if you know the ideas. You'd be amazed how easy it is to still play the correct theoretical moves even if you're actually out of preparation in the NID.

It may be the single biggest benefit to the NID in general. It's really hard to screw it up if you're comfortable with it. The game against Taylor was one of the very few games with it I ever actually had discomfort out of the opening.