Stigma wrote on 03/15/15 at 22:22:13:


I also basically agree, except that I didn't just mean the theory.  The "nature" of play is often different in the Nimzo than it usually is in those other openings (at least it seems like it to me, the way that I approach chess).  You're usually pitting the bishop pair vs. development or the bishop pair vs. structure in the Nimzo, whereas the "other" things to prepare for (Colle, Torre, London, Catalan, Benoni or QID or Bogo) all have different strategic considerations.  So a Nimzo repertoire is just about the most broad repertoire vs. 1.d4, in my opinion.  The number of types of pawn structures and other imbalances is just enormous!

Of course that's part of the appeal: it's perhaps the most rich complex of openings at Black's disposal when meeting 1.d4.  But you get a lot of different types of positions when you set out to play it.  I feel like a King's Indian player (or Grunfeld or Benoni or Dutch player, or QGD or Slav player) gets "their" type of position more often than a Nimzo player does.  At least, that was my experience. 

I didn't necessarily mean amount of theory, if that makes sense.  It's all a bit subjective, though.

bragesjo wrote on 03/17/15 at 14:06:10:


In my case (I usually play Bogo vs 3.Nf3) I faced (when I used to play Ragozin) more often quiet e3 lines (zero advantage for White I think) than Qc2 or Qa4 lines. My opponent elo range is/were (1800, 2200) fide. Of course, lots of transpositions between Nimzo and Ragozin are possible. Some of my Ragozin games ended in the Karpov variation of the nimzo or QGD exchange variation with Bb4 (not so good in itself, but where Nf3 is not a threatening move).

I also have "The Ragozin complex" on a shelf at home. One day I will start reading it and starting to play again Ragozin. I learned a little about Ragozin thanks to a chapter on that subject in a Bogdan Lalic book: "The Bg5 Queens Gambit" (or something like that).

Salut,

This thread made me interested in Ragozin again. I bougt a new book some year ago but I never got the time to read it.
I tried it against a friend in some recent blitz games and we often reached Qc2 d5 Nimzo lines by transposing.
Nf3 Nimzo d5 is a direct transposning but are there transposning possibilities? Might read that book after all and see if I like it.

ErictheRed wrote on 03/15/15 at 16:25:01:

I agree in general, but preparing any of the really critical equalizing tries against 1.d4 is a huge and broad project, isn't it? Last time I checked, the Grünfeld, the King's Indian and the Semi-Slav had also developed a bit of theory over the years...

In the King's Indian, the Mar del Plata, the Fianchetto and possibly the Bayonet may be the only truly critical attempts by White (though like you I have a soft spot for the Sämisch), so in a sense that's easier... until you gaze at the Himalaya of theory in the Mar del Plata alone.

While in the Grünfeld it seems like White has 10 critical tries, exactly which 10 that is changes each year, and if Black knows all the latest theory by heart he gets a drawn endgame or a far-fetched-looking perpetual check without having to think much at the board.

Choose your poison, I guess!

tony37 wrote on 03/15/15 at 17:11:42:


I don't think that's a very controversial opinion; I did say "most."

Personally I think that if you like the Benoni lines after 3.Nf3 and 3.g3, then your work is done; just play those.  In some sense, the Benoni is perhaps the ideal pairing with the Nimzo, as you avoid White's most critical systems and you have a lot of move order options against White's other first and second moves.

I've tried to get excited about the Ragozin for more than a decade, but I just can't, personally. 

One discouraging thing about the Nimzo is that you'll spend SOOooo much time preparing for the London/Colle/Torre, working out your move orders against 1.Nf3 and 1.c4, etc., then the Catalan, then 3.Nf3, because those will make up most of your games.  Then when someone FINALLY allows the Nimzo against you, they've typically specialized in a particular line as White and know it better than you, since your preparation has had to be so broad.  Yippee.

So to me, playing the Nimzo-Indian is sort of a lifestyle choice.  If you're a huge Nimzovitch disciple like BPaulsen around here is, great, it's probably the best defense to 1.d4.  But it's not for the faint of heart or those who only want to dabble in it.  Picking up the Nimzo (at least against good competition) is a huge endeavor.

Laramonet wrote on 03/13/15 at 09:16:07:


I think both the Hedgehog and the Double Fianchetto are good options for Nimzo/QID players against 1.Nf3. Against 1.c4 it's a matter of taste, I personally like 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 (followed by 3...Bb4) and 1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 e6 followed by 3...d5, transposing back into either the Catalan or some harmless Reti. If you play the Sicilian as Black 1...c5 is the obvious choice and you can play it against 1.Nf3 and 1.c4.