Play what you like against 3.Nf3, but play the Nimzo because it's extremely strong and because you like the games. It would seem strange to say you're learning the whole Nimzo-Indian Defense just to avoid one variation of some defense you like better, though if you already know and like the Nimzo this same approach works well.

Also, if you play somewhere where you see Nc3 truly rarely, it would indeed seem that learning the Exchange QGD or flick-knife or whatever theory as Black would be a better idea than learning the Nimzo. I have heard there are places where it's hard to get d4 and c4, rather than a d-pawn special, at all.

BobbyDigital80 wrote on 04/17/19 at 03:49:42:

Quote:

If you don't mind the Exchange Variation (when 3.Nf3 is premature), the Botvinnik Variation (3.Nc3 d5 4.Qc2), the Taimanov Attaack (f2-f4) you're right.
The Semi-Slav can only be reached via 1...d5, not after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3.

IsaVulpes wrote on 04/11/19 at 10:36:18:


I like the idea of playing the QGD after 3.Nf3, specifically the Tartakower variation. Kasparov used to play this way and if I remember correctly, Topalov did too. Actually all the responses after 3.Nf3 that appeal to me can also be played against 3.Nc3: the QGD, Ragozin, Benoni, Semi-Slav...

I know I asked about the QID in my original post, but for some reason I'm not really that thrilled about the opening. A lot of lines seem really weird to me, like 4.g3 Ba6, and then going back to b7 with the bishop later on. Also the pawn sac line after 5.Qc2 c5 6.d5. I don't really understand the appeal of these lines from Black's point of view. I'm also not a big fan of the Bogo-Indian. It seems passive to me.

Since all the lines against 3.Nf3 that I like can also be played against 3.Nc3, it makes me wonder if I should just avoid the NID and focus on one of those defenses. It seems like Black faces 3.Nf3 much more often than 3.Nc3, so why learn the NID when you can cut down on study time and just play the QGD, Ragozin, Benoni, Semi-Slav, etc.? Is it really that necessary to learn the NID just to avoid certain lines like the exchange QGD, various 3.Nc3 Benoni lines, and certain anti-Semi-Slav lines? I know some top players do this, but for amateurs it seems like it's too much. I guess the QGD makes sense to be a companion with the NID because the traditional 1.d4 d5 move order allows the exchange variation, but it seems like the exchange variation isn't as critical as it used to be, thanks in part to a transposition to the Tarrasch with 4.cxd5 Nxd5. There's also the line advocated in Ntirlis's book.

I'll have to think about this more. I definitely like the NID, but maybe I'll look into playing the QGD or Semi-Slav using the 1.d4 d5 move order.

IsaVulpes wrote on 04/11/19 at 10:36:18:


The Ragozin is an interesting choice, but can’t Black just reach it with the 1...d5 move order? 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 was recommended by Richard Pert in his book on the Ragozin. It seems like playing this way would cut down on a lot of theory over the NID/Ragozin complex.

BobbyDigital80 wrote on 04/11/19 at 04:50:05:

NID: more than 130 000 games.
QID: almost 85 000 games.
KID (including 3.g3 stuff):  more than 310 000.
Semi-Slav (...Nf6 only): 200 000 games.

Note that Bragesjo's argument for the NID also applies to to KID - playing ...Na6 cuts down heavily.

ReneDescartes wrote on 04/11/19 at 16:34:34:


Yep, though there's also the possibility of allowing f5 and meeting it with ...f6 -- but I'm not sure how that's regarded these days.

The fact for example the KID has one name while the Nimzo-Indian and the Queen's Indian have two does not imply that there is twice as much theory in the latter openings. Forget about names; they mean nothing--not just here, but anywhere in opening theory.

The important thing is that Nf6 and...e6 without a very early ...d5 is a large main-line opening complex with a strategic emphasis, that as in the Ruy Lopez there are some sharp variations and some where understanding is more important, and that you can avoid the sharpest variations if you want. Also, there is no forced deadened variation. That doesn't mean the opening is easy to play well, just that memorization of tactical sequences is likely to form a relatively smaller role than in the Gruenfeld or Sicilian. But you had better know that in the Saemisch Nimzo, after immobilizing and going after the doubled c4-pawn with multiple typical moves while White has developed with e3, Bd3, etc., then as soon as White plays e4 you need to play the weird-looking ...Ne8 (though it wasn't weird-looking to Capablanca who invented it) and follow up a coming f4 with a blockading ...f5. Otherwise you'll get crushed.

RoleyPoley wrote on 04/11/19 at 14:45:02:


Of course, sorry. The book is "Mastering the Nimzo-Indian: With the Read and Play Method" by our boss here (Tony Kosten). It's a starting guide book about typical pawn structures and plans, not a theory book in a way we are used to in 2019.

But I have to say that nowadays is a waste of time to study in depth the nimzo in terms of profit vs investment time, because very few people plays in the 1.d4 2.c4 3.Nc3 vs our move order. Some people here said this already. Few people play 2.c4 and when you see it: "Wow! Someone is playing c4!!!" then you see Nf3 on move 3...

Myself I am avoiding NID both with White and with Black If everybody allowed me to enter into nimzo waters, I will play a lot more Nf6-e6 move order as Black against 1.d4.

And yes, Sielecki book on the Nimzo+Bogo is very good. I played his Bogo recommendations for a while, obtaining good positions out of the opening almost every time.

Salut,

BobbyDigital80 wrote on 04/11/19 at 10:36:13:

Perhaps he meant mastering the Nimzo?

IsaVulpes wrote on 04/11/19 at 10:36:18:
I asked a talented youth at the club how she plays against 1.d4, her reply was "I play the Bogo-Indian."

CanadianClub wrote on 04/11/19 at 08:52:08:

Isn't this agreeing 

I agree as well, fwiw :^) The 4.Qc2 mainline I combat with some concrete stuff one has to know a bit about, and all the Bg5 lines are somewhat important to handle properly, but most of the Nimzo, even playing the absolute top database choice till move 10, can be handled over the board.

I don't play the QID, so I'm not sure how similar it is in that respect (personally, when looking at the positions, they always looked less natural for Black to me - in particular the A0 pawnsac line of course), but even if it amounts to some kind of work, you can of course always pair the Nimzo with something else (I play the QGD after 3.Nf3, and if the standard one is too boring for you, then the Ragozin is always an option; Sielecki in his book recommends the Bogo, which also shouldn't be too much work; and if you already play the Benoni, you can of course also go for that, while having avoided the most critical tries)

E: The main reason that I can see to steer clear of the Nimzo is that it's a big question how often you actually get it on the board.
I've been playing the Nimzo in OTB play since the Gustafsson video series on it was released (end of 2016, so a little over 2 years), and in the 80-100 games (well, halve this since only Black matters) that I got in that timespan, I managed to get.. 3? 4? Nimzos on the board (default opponent in the 1800-2100 range).
Almost everyone I've seen goes 3.Nf3, so if you really really want to play some NID games, you may end up disappointed (akin to the Marshall, which I also .. try to play  ); while if you play something like the KID, you're always going to get something resembling the positions that you want.

I disagree.

In the NID, there are lots of possible variations for White (4.Qc2, 4.e3, 4a3...) to take care of. But once you get a feeling about what's going on in the opening (in general) there are very easy to find and very easy to figure out over the board. There are some tactical lines where a little knowledge is important, but there are also alternatives to this "critical" variations that are absolutely playable.

"Understanding the Ninzo-Indian Defence" and "The Nimzo-Indian Move by Move" are two not-too-heavy single volume books that explains the major nuances of the NID.

Grünfeld, semi-slav or KID are, imho, more success-theory-dependant than NID.

I don't play QID and maybe there are critical lines, of course, but it seems to me (from a certain distance, as I don't play it) that are not very difficult to start playing it confidently. As with any opening out there, the more you play it, the more you'll going to understand it.

PD: another easy source to follow, a little video gem: "The Knock-Out nimzo" (http://badbishop.com/bbpages/dnimzo.html), in aprox and hour... Nimzo explained.

If someone takes up the NID and QID, is that twice the amount of theory that other openings like the KID or Semi-Slav have? I want to play the NID and was wondering how much QID theory there is compared to it.