Thx to all three, Vass, Tony and Aziridine.

No problem playing IQP positions, in fact Emms in this chapter about the Parma variation explains when to exchange pawns and what type of pawn structure we're aiming for, with a model game by Carlsen playing Black against isolani or hanging pawns.

And I think the autor also gives another possibility that I don't remember exactly now but I think it's the one pointed by tony37. As a first try I bypassed that option trying to focus on one unique var, but I'm going to check this, of course.

Emms also points some cxd4 followed by axb4 examples, so... I'll check this lines carefully, too

Thx !!

Vass's advice is very sound. Keep in mind that the Parma is essentially an attempt to improve on Karpov's move order (delaying the capture on d4 stops White from playing Bg5), so the two variations are very closely related. Even if you choose the Parma you must be familiar with the IQP structures that both lines inevitably lead to, since Black can't delay the capture on d4 indefinitely.

I'm studying Emms' book right now to introduce myself in the nimzo labyrinths. And I like it a lot. Very well explained.

My other sources in the nimzo are a 2003-dVd by Tony Kosten and Bologan's "Never too late for the nimzo" Chessbase project.

And I am doubting in which lines I have to pick up vs 4.e3:

• Emms advocates for the Parma variation (4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 dxc4 8.Bxc4 c5 9.Nf3 Nbd7 10.0-0 b6 and so on)
• Bologan exhanges both pawns (4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 c5 7.0-0 cxd4 8.exd4 dxc4 9.Bxc4 b6) immediately
• Kosten's 4.e3 b6 are not bad but I prefer the others.

What are the differences between them (Emms vs Bologan) and what line is easy to play? It seems to me than Bologan line requires precise play and Emms' one maybe needs more maneuvring, is a bit more closed and calmy. Is it correct?

thx !!

About Agaards DVD, while I like it very much I would say that hes line vs e3 has some drawbacks.
He proposed d5 at once but as I recall he did not mention a3 directly like in the famous game Botvinnik-Capablance where white won. I like the Karpov system as black but I always play 0-0 first to avoid this variation.

BobbyDigital80 wrote on 12/08/12 at 10:15:47:


Becouse it is a bad variation

g3 at once is a very rare move in Nimzo Indian and the reason is that black can simply castle and after Bg2 he can play d5 and have reaced a Catalan postion when the c3 Knight belongs to d2 so black can in some lines even play to hold an extra pawn in case of dxc4.. Therefore Nf3 is often played first (as played by Kasparov) so rule out this possibilety.

Why isn't 4.g3 covered in this book?

But higher rated players and titled players need heavy analysis. I am not sure how many of them would prefer verbal explanation over analysis, but I have heard that this book is also good for higher rated players, do you find?

I have browsed Emms´ ”Move by move” and I do like the concept. 

When learning a new opening I am not dependent on heavy analysis in repertoire books. Instead I think it is very important with verbal descriptions of the opening, key positions and underlaying plans. I also appreciate description of strategical and tactical differences in tha various main lines. If the development of the  opening also is described in depth then I am very happy.

When adopting specific lines in my repertoire I depend mostly on my ”big database”: Going through games played by champions of the opening (with e.g. ”Move by Move” and/or Starting out” or any other book as guides).

I mostly never adopt repertoires from repertoire books. I still think these books are nice to study to get new ideas and a better understanding of the opening.

I think ”Move by move” fullfills my requirement at least to some extent. However if ”Starting out” is as good or better it won't hurt using both together with ”Opening Explained”.

It could be interewting to discuss the differences between "Starting out" and "Move by Move". Will "Move by Move" replace "Starting out" or will they live side by side? If so which to use when?