In actual practice at the amateur level they are virtually the same e.g. d5 0.30 and b6 0.39 according to SF. Both are completely playable. 

I have played the Nimzo-Bogo combo for years but recently upgraded to the QID. This was a little extra work but I am playing the Nimzo-Larsen and "Queen's Indian Attack" as white so I am getting lots of mileage out the extra work.

Lauri Torni wrote on 02/12/21 at 19:14:23:


Upon further inspection, the first part of the QID number is the same as the author being quoted. So quote author=484246290 led to QID becoming 4842462907 in my first quote. And the final digit changed when I edited the post. Correction: changed in the preview, but upon saving it still ends with a 7. That also explains why the substitution does not happen in an initial post, but only when quoting a post. QID means Quote-ID, probably.

Just my curiosity,

But why do I see this:

Quote:


Where the Queen's Indian becomes a numerical string? I have seen this elsewhere on the boards as well.

I've tried out the QID defense lately. Neither my opponents, nor I, had a firm hand on theory. The games have been interesting. I've been surprised that the following line has occurred a few times. Apparently, it's fairly natural.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. Nc3 Bb7 5. Bg5 Be7 6. e3 O-O 7. Bd3 h6 8. Bh4 d5

We start with a Queen's Indian and transpose to the Tartakover variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined.

As a very general matter, some players become enamored of certain set-ups. For example some players always fianchetto their king bishop as black whenever possible (King's Indian, Benoni, Grunfeld, Pirc, Modern, Dragon, ...g6 in the scotch or 4 knights).

Similarly if one becomes comfortable with ...b6 and Bb7(a6), it opens possibilities in a few openings. Although specifics differ, anyone who plays the Tartakover QGD should consider feel at home in some lines of QID and vice versa.

MartinC wrote on 02/14/21 at 09:43:12:

Blindly is hardly the most suitable adverb for how someone is following the latest fashion.  

No doubt there is a misunderstanding, because when I use the word fashion I mean that multiple players take up an opening for the simple reason that they see some top player has played it, *without* reference to the theoretical value. In other words, it may be better than what they were playing previously, or worse, or the same. That's not exactly blind. In logical terms it's an appeal to authority, which can be a fallacy in some circumstances.

MartinC wrote on 02/14/21 at 09:43:12:
 
Well you may have committed a fallacy there. It's called begging the question, and it's precisely why I called it a tricky thing.

How fashion might work for strong players is fairly simple.

1. They play things they have been analyzing.
2. They analyze things they have seen recently.
3. Paying attention to what potential future opponents might play against them, what they have seen recently is games by other strong players.

When top players move en masse to a new opening it may indeed be because of theoretical problems with what they were playing before. But we shouldn't just assume that. Maybe they merely lost interest in it, which is another symptom of the fashion industries.

For us lesser mortals there is a practical aspect for playing QGD instead of QID. 

London, Torre, Colle etc. are very popular at amateur level. 

After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 one can play 2.-d5 and now 3.c4 is clearly the best move. 3.Bf4, 3.Bg5, 3.e3, 3.g3 are not as active as after 2.-e6. 

Moreover, after 1.Nf3 one can choose to play 1.-d5. 

MartinC wrote on 02/12/21 at 09:55:50:

What they could say is those GMs used to do that, but recently they stopped doing it. To my mind the burden would be on them to support that claim in some way. But let's skip over that, because possible evidence is not any easier to challenge than it is to produce.

The tricky thing here is if the top GMs suddenly rush en masse to a different defense, it could be because of fashion, or it could be because of some new theoretical conclusion. It's only if they later swing back again that we could reliably conclude it must have been fashion.

Bibs wrote on 02/12/21 at 03:36:04:


I have no wish to dispute any of that.

None the less, I also don't see how anyone could dispute the contention that the same top level GM's are very prone to swings of fashion. 

The historical record is very clear on that, and has also - however soundly based the fashions no doubt seemed at the time - has left them looking a tiny bit odd in retrospect.