Late to this discussion, but I rather thought that one of the advantages the Bogo had over the Old Indian was that the exchange of a pair of minor pieces left Black's position less cramped. I can't pretend to be an expert in either line (and would echo the importance of taste above), but I remember getting squeezed in the Old Indian, and had knights and bishops tripping over each other in close quarters.

He offers 4..d6 as a secondary option.

ReneDescartes wrote on 12/09/16 at 14:41:18:


Fully agree.

The original question asked about the Bogo/Nimzo vs. the Old Indian.  I stand by my statement that as a paired defense the Bogo/Nimzo is objectively better than the Old Indian.  After all, you get to play the Nimzo some of the time, and it is the best of the three defenses.

Looked at in isolation, is the Bogo better or worse than the OID?  Well, in all seriousness, how much does that really matter?  It's not like you can just play the Bogo as your 1.d4 defense; obviously you need to pair it with something else and White needs to cooperate. 

Nonetheless, I do think of the Bogo as being better than the OID.  YMMV.  But to me, anyway, the 4.Bd2 a5 line seems fine for Black, and, while I tend to agree with ReneDescartes about 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 O-O 5.a3 Be7 6.e4 d5 7.e5, Sielecki thinks Black is holding his own here. 

As to the Zurich variation, I'm not a big fan. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 Nc6 5.Nf3 d5 6.Bd2 0-0 7.a3 Bxc3 8.Qe7 and now:

9.e3 e5 10.d5 Nb8 11.Nd2 c6 12.dxc6 Nxc6 13.Bd3 Nd4 14.Qb1 Ne6 15.b4 b6 is recommended by Gustafsson as better for White.  To his credit, Sielecki concedes that White is more comfortable, although he notes that Black remains solid.   

9.e4 e5 10.d5 Nb8 11.Be2 when 11..a5 12.c5 Nd7 has been thought to be better for White since Ward-Palliser, British Ch. 2001.  Sielecki suggests 12..Bg4, which he thinks is fine for Black.

 

You asked about the Bogo. I guess I don't agree that it enjoys the objective reputation of the Nimzo, but you can try to build a dark-square structure after trading off your dark-square bishop rather than while having it buried on e7. Of course, that often hands White the bishop pair or a partly-useful tempo for nothing without doubling his pawns or getting a development advantage, so that's also a +/= for quite a few moves. Meanwhile, the fashionable 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nd2 O-O 5.a3 Be7 6.e4 d5 7.e5 gives White a gigantic center and kingside attack.

However, to pair with the Nimzo on 3. Nf3, the QID and the Tartakower or Lasker QGD after the transposition with 3...d5 are universally respected on the objective front.

But I second the thought that += vs. = isn't really that important for mortals (or for immortals named Carlsen). The free-hand thing has its positive side. With the Old Indian you'd certainly avoid theory. Most players don't have anything extensively prepared against it. In fact, even the Everyman opening monograph on it says there just isn't much theory--a bit like the Modern in earlier times, but on the classical Steinitzian side. I even know one master who admits he never knows what to do against the Old Indian. You could pair it with the Philidor and write A Cramped, Passive, Solid Repertoire for Black.

MartinC wrote on 12/04/16 at 23:05:16:


The Tarrasch shows up in serious repertoire books as well, and black does nothing but suffer in that.   

I didn't think the Old Indian was considered unsound either, just solid and not super exciting.  The Zurich and Bogo seem like much the same sort of thing to me. 

LeeRoth wrote on 12/04/16 at 19:25:25:


Does that assessment hold for just the lines in the Nimzo/Bogo where black puts pawns on d6 and e5, such as the Zurich variation?  Isn't the Zurich also generally thought of as +/=?

As for the Bogo, in what specific way is that objectively superior to the Old Indian?  I need details, because +/= doesn't mean much to me.

One positive thing about old Indian is that is less common and people would tend to react same way as against a KID. People entering volunteering in a nimzo for sure know the stuff well, usually.

But I don't like Old Indian positions myself, a pure subjective feeling.

Do you want the darksquare bishop outside the pawn chain or behind a pawn on d6?