Paddy wrote on 06/11/20 at 12:54:10:
ReneDescartes wrote on 06/10/20 at 22:16:03:
I believe the typical Saemisch-type strategic approach of doubling the c-pawns, fighting against the weak front c-pawn and big center, was invented in the mid-19th century in England. Elijah Williams beat Staunton and others using it--though not with this exact move order.
The Nimzo move order proper was tried in 1883 by Blackburne (his opponent played 5.Bd2, and he played ...b6 and ...d5), and then in 1914 by Alekhine (who played ...b6,...c5 and ...d5 against Rubinstein's 5.e3) and Nimzovitch (who played the typical dark-square strategy of ...c5, ...d6, and ...e5 against Janowski's 5.e3). It was not a way of avoiding a feared variation, but rather part of the general exploration, by both hypermoderns like Gruenfeld and others like Maroczy, of new ways to treat the center. Nimzovitch himself played it a lot from 1922 on, usually with ...b6 and Bb7. By 1926, even Tarrasch(!) used it to win a beautiful game against Gilg with ...b6, ...Bb7 ...Ne4, and ...f5 .
At that time the QGD Exchange variation, while not unknown, was not thought very frightening. Otherwise, Capa and Alekhine would have used the Exchange against each other at least once in their match, or else avoided 3.Nc3. The Exchange's reputation grew especially after Botvinnik-Keres, when Botvinnik produced the plan with f3 and Ne2, and again during the 1980s when Kasparov used it to defeat Anderson and others. Today I think it is not particularly feared. Of course, the Nimzo is much less constrained for both sides than the QGD Exchange--less technical, more unbalanced, and strategically richer. I think players avoid the 3.Nc3 QGD today, if they do, not so much out of fear as out of a desire for a different sort of game.
I myself play both the Nimzo and the QGD as Black, usually with the Nimzo order, but not always. By the way, if you want to know how to play against the Exchange, read Ntirlis' Classical Repertoire.
The first two paragraphs are more or less correct. The popularity of both the Nimzo-Indian and the Queen's Indian begins in the 1920s, based on the hypermodern idea that the centre can be controlled to a sufficient extent by piece pressure, keeping the centre pawns flexibly in reserve.
The Exchange variation of the Queen's Gambit was played many times before the First World War, including by very strong players such as Steinitz, Pillsbury and (especially) Marshall. It's rise in popularity with other top players is usually dated from the great Carlsbad tournament of 1923, where the exchange on d5 was used as a way of avoiding the so-called Swiss Defence with an early ...a6, intending the manoeuvre ...dxc4, ...b5, ...Bb7,...c5 - a sort of delayed Queen's Gambit Accepted. Since then many sources refer to the Exchange Variation as an example of the "Carlsbad structure", which also occurs for example (with reversed colours) in the Caro-Kann Exchange variation. Capablanca (among others) was a great early fan of the Carlsbad and he used it three times in his 1927 match vs Alekhine.
The Exchange variation was also used as a way of avoiding the Cambridge Springs.
Marshall continued to use the Exchange throughout the 1920s and it was soon taken up enthusiastically by younger masters such as Flohr and Reshevsky. At that time the two main plans for White were
a) 0-0 and minority attack with b4-b5;
b) 0-0-0 with kingside pawn storm.
Both Nf3 and Nge2 were used with these plans.
As noted above, the rise of a third plan with Nge2, 0-0 and f3 dates from the well-known game Botvinnik-Keres, USSR ch 1952.
A useful source on the early history of several major openings (but not including the Nimzo- or Queen's Indian) is "Chess from Morphy to Botvinnik" (1951) by Imre König.
Perhaps I was misunderstood. With regard to my second paragraph, I don't believe we disagree; we just have emphasized different things. The OP asked whether the Nimzo move order evolved as a way of avoiding the QGD Exchange, and I responded that no, the latter was not seen as very frightening--meaning, I thought obviously in the context of the OP's question, not so frightening as to warrant avoiding 1...d5. Of course I knew it was a respected variation. Here is an old post of mine from another thread.
ReneDescartes wrote on 08/15/19 at 13:51:09:
Exchanging on d4, then posting a knight on e5, followed by f2-f4 and a kingside assault, is still known as the Pillsbury attack; his contemporaries referred to his victories in this line as "Pillsburials."
With regard to the Capablanca-Alekhine match, I checked it carefully before my post and stand by what I said Yes, three games featured cxd5 ...exd5, but only at
move eight, after Capa had played 7. Rc1(somewhat misplacing the queen's rook if he had been aiming for a minority attack) and Alekhine had responded 7...a6, preparing an extended fianchetto but perhaps not so useful in the Carlsbad. This is a far cry from employing either cxd5 or the Carlsbad structure as a weapon of choice, let alone at move four. Capa and Alekhine neither desired or feared the Exchange move order discussed in this thread. The point, of course, was to reinforce my reply to the OP. Thank you for the rest of the Exchange's history, though; I'm glad to learn all that.
I still have the impression that people who went so far as to learn the Nimzo in order to avoid the Exchange only began to do so sometime after the introduction of the Botvinnik f3 plan. Not that the Exchange wasn't seen as a major main line--it's just that it didn't terrorize anyone into deforming his repertoire the way the Ne2-f3 plan and the Huebner sometimes did in later decades.
In fact, I think the phenomenon of a dominant variation scaring people away is very rare and usually very temporary. Perhaps the flick-knife Benoni provides another example, but opening choices are made for other reasons.
Pages: [1] 
The History of the Nimzo-Indian Defense (Read 9234 times)
