MartinC wrote on 09/14/11 at 09:07:49:

No indeed, but rejecting eg the Hübner based on this robs Black of an excellent tool to play for a win.
Even more contradictory is this:

piefr1 wrote on 09/13/11 at 15:42:15:

While it's true that I don't know much about the Bogo-Indian I still state that it doesn't allow Black to open up the game at an early stage. The Blumenfeld Gambit seems a more logical (not necessarily better) choice.
So S_F's objection still stands.

Yes that was mostly what I meant - formally of course even the Tarrasch has e6/d5/c4 vs d4/c4 which is pretty closed overall. It just never stays that way for long.

And actually the question seems to have been asked as to whether its stupid to look for Nimzo variants giving open positions. 

The answer to which has to be no, its very much not so. In fact its entirely possible to put together a perfectly sound repitoire where black hardly ever takes on c3

All this flexibility does of course come at a cost in that it does take a bit of work to pin down what you want out of the opening.

And actually the idea of opening the center vs bishops being 'modern' is a bit wrong (and almost certainly not what Watson actually meant of course!). The Hubner is the classically closed variation vs 4 e3 but actually only got popular quite late on in relative terms.

In spite of the general lack of recommendation it tends to receive 4. Qc2 c5 is actually not that bad theoretically if black uses the 5. dxc5 0-0 6. a3 Bxc5 7. Nf3 b6 continuation (Macieja Variation), and may give the sort of game black players are after. It's also a lot easier to prepare than other main lines, in my experience (main thing to know is just the timing of ...Nh5 in various lines).

If white uses 6. Nf3 instead then 6...Na6 works well enough.

If Black really abhors closed positions, then s/he could try the Tarrasch or the Chigorin. 

But I think it would be better to learn some of the basics of closed and semi-closed positions instead and learning the Nimzo/Bogo complex would be an excellent place to start.

Martin, I learned that when White has a central pawn structure of c4, d4 e3 and Black has a pawn structure of c5, d5, e6, the position can be considered "closed" even if there are possibilities of opening it up in the future. In fact, the possibility of opening up a closed game while open games are almost never closed back up again is one of the defining features of the closed game. No, the position isn't locked in stone, but that isn't what defines a closed position. Well, at least Karpov and others didn't define it that way. 

Karpov considers the Nimzo-Indian to be "semi-closed", along with the Classical King's Indian.

Here's a classic game showing the closed nature of the Nimzo-Indian. (I know, there are also plenty of games, as played by Spassky, where the position opens up fairly quickly. But remembering the definitions, the Nimzo-Indian starts out as a closed system with the potential to be opened up.)

kylemeister wrote on 09/13/11 at 17:06:23:


This subject is discussed by Watson. I.e. the player playing with the bishop pair often wants to open up the position before the other has time to consolidate.

EDIT: Typo. It should of course read the player playing against the bishop pair.

If you don't like closed positions but have chosen the Nimzo and Bogo-Indians and consider the Bogo_Indian to be too passive, you may want to reconsider  either your tastes or your openings.