Nimzowitsch Defense – 1...Nc6 | How should you react?
Article by GM Avetik Grigoryan
Not yet. Love the idea though and plan to try it. Thank you Master Susik! Peace.
Lol
I played the Nimzowitsch Defense for about a year, and the results were mixed for me. I used the main 2. ..d5 continuation, as well as the 2. ..d6 and 2. ..e6 continuations. Against mid-amateurs (up to 1800 rating), it worked extremely well, the center either bogged down and the queenside pressure became irresistible (I actually won a tournament with such a game), or it blew open and my pieces were liberated.
Stronger players, however, seemed able to clamp down on the kingside, and the inability to play an early c5 made it slow in comparison to the French Defense. I still use it from time to time, but it's really just a change-of-pace defense for me now.
Interesting, thanks. I hadn't seen/noticed this opening before. It intrigued me. I like be able to throw the proverbial curve ball at my e4 opponent.
Out of 1857 blitz games she played 5 with 1. e4 Nc6 - she lost 3 of them, one against someone rated barely over 2000.
(stockfish says the last position is equal as both players probably ran low on time, but white is completely winning since move 22 or so).
For her otb games she played it 4 times out of 286, and attained a performance rating of 1878 with it ahahaha! (her average rating playing it was 2174). 
https://old.chesstempo.com/gamedb/player/67053
Such a massive top secret weapon. 
its not that great an article. (mostly because i expect more thorough analysis by a GM then this)
it is well known by now that 1.e4 nc6 2.d4 d5 3.nc3 dxe4 4. d5 and not ne4!? but nb8! almost equalizes right away.
some of the other lines are also quite inadequately analyzed. For example, 1.e4 nc6 2.nf3 d6 3.d4 nf6 4. nc3 g6 is quite reliable, reaching pretty easy to play pseudo-pirc positions without worrying about an early c4 or the dreaded Austrian attack. The line the master recommends is pretty good, but not that dangerous. Dubov for example drew Giri pretty easily in this line in 2018 with it.
Get Schyler's dark knight system. Its arguably the best book on the opening. Wineski's is meh, especially his recommendation of the el columpio nonsense.
@darkunorthodox88
The article is not bad at all. First of all its audience is probably the below 2000 group and for them its a good intro. Naturally, u cannot capture all the nuances in a short writing, but it serves its purpose well, giving important ideas and showing some of the difficulties.
I play this system regularly and I can reconfirm that the line 1. e4 Nc6 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Bg4 5. Bb5 (or Be3) is the most annoying I usually have to face when I play against someone "relatively strong".
Another thing which could be mentioned that 1. - Nc6 works for 1. d4 as well as a secret weapon!
@darkunorthodox88
The article is not bad at all. First of all its audience is probably the below 2000 group and for them its a good intro. Naturally, u cannot capture all the nuances in a short writing, but it serves its purpose well, giving important ideas and showing some of the difficulties.
I play this system regularly and I can reconfirm that the line 1. e4 Nc6 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Bg4 5. Bb5 (or Be3) is the most annoying I usually have to face when I play against someone "relatively strong".
Another thing which could be mentioned that 1. - Nc6 works for 1. d4 as well as a secret weapon!
im judging the article relative to the author's strength. If he were an expert or a FIDE master, this would be a great introduction to the defense but when its a GM my standards are a bit higher.
actually the 5.bb5 line is fairly harmless and gives black a good game. Black ends up getting 2 c-pawns to thrown at d4. Miles had some good wins vs bb5. Its be3 with the early d5 maneuver that made him give up the line. I tried for the longest to make the bg4 nimzowitsch line viable but nothing really works if white is prepared. I recall losing a game badly vs another master when i went for bg4 and bxf3 but black just ends up with down a bishop pair for nothing.
I ended up begrudgingly giving Schyler's 4.g6 line a try and found out how easily playable it is. The nimzowitsh purist in me didnt like the resemblance to the Pirc but it is actually easier to play than a true pirc.
they are almost no good resources out there to learn 1.d4 nc6.There is an amateurish one called the "bozo-indian defense" e-book and Schyler's book has a section on it, but its probably the least reliable section of his otherwise great book. Your best bet is to observe games by GM Short, GM Stevic (who has a very good record with it) and IM's Vlassov and Mestrovic (although Mestrovic can be a bit TOO experimental at times)
@darkunorthodox88
I agree that the line 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 g6 5.Be3 Bg7 6.Qd2 does not refute the opening. As the plan with c6 is not possible here, I assume a6-b5 is the idea?
@darkunorthodox88
I agree that the line 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 g6 5.Be3 Bg7 6.Qd2 does not refute the opening. As the plan with c6 is not possible here, I assume a6-b5 is the idea?
it depends a lot on how white plays it. IF white goes for an early d5 before bh6, then black should probably play c6 and keep his options flexible. Sometimes, cxd5, followed by bg4 and nbd7 is best, other times, b5, may actually work because of the in-between b4 hitting the knight. In fact, in the lichess database i see two games with Giri with the white pieces. One was a draw vs Duda in 2018 and one was a lost vs Xiong in 2019 so this can hardly be a refuted line.
If white delays kicking the knight, then black will probably play bg4 and e5., although a6 and b5 is also worth a try. Both actually score better for Black in the lichess database from master level games.
But this idea that 4.g6 is just a bad pirc is just silly. Both sides have limited their possibilities with the move but in the mutual concession, i actually think black has an improvement on the traditional pirc as white is almost forced to only do piece play as opposed to the more dangerous lines like the Austrian attack, and the f3-be3-qd2 line. Another telling sign is that in lines where black gets the early e5, white's best choice is often to take on e5 as d5 is not nearly as effective anymore compared to a KID because the c pawn is still on c2.
As white I sneakily try to transpose to a Ruy lopez by simply playing 2.Bb5 and it works almost 90% of the time as black just plays 2...e5. If they play 2..e6 or d6 I just pretend I`m playing the Ruy Lopez and go for a closed Ruy Lopez formation. Of course it is not the same as a Ruy Lopez if they don`t play 2...5 but somehow I still manage to make the closed Ruy Lopez ideas work
But the Ruy Lopez is objectively a much better defence for black than the Nimzowitsch defence, you're not proving the defence to be bad, you're just trying to bypass it. That's the sort of thing you do just to avoid theory, it's not a response the defence at all.
In fact it doesn't even work for that because 2. ...Nd4 and black has won at least a tempo.
As white I sneakily try to transpose to a Ruy lopez by simply playing 2.Bb5 and it works almost 90% of the time as black just plays 2...e5. If they play 2..e6 or d6 I just pretend I`m playing the Ruy Lopez and go for a closed Ruy Lopez formation. Of course it is not the same as a Ruy Lopez if they don`t play 2...5 but somehow I still manage to make the closed Ruy Lopez ideas work
But the Ruy Lopez is objectively a much better defence for black than the Nimzowitsch defence, you're not proving the defence to be bad, you're just trying to bypass it. That's the sort of thing you do just to avoid theory, it's not a response the defence at all.
In fact it doesn't even work for that because 2. ...Nd4 and black has won at least a tempo.
Yes it is but in that case why does not Black play it? Because they know the Nimzowitsch better so by transposing to the Ruy Lopez I get what I want because I believe I know it better, I have no interest in dealing with the Nimzowitsch or as you say responding to it. I only have interest in winning the game.
2...Nd4 - They have not won a tempo - they have this idea in the Ruy lopez as well, plus they are moving a piece in the opening twice too. Infact if you look at the opening explorer you will see 2...Nd4 is the second to last choice and the computer does not recommend this at all
In fact what I am suggesting with 2.Bb5 is known as Nimzowitsch defence Pseudo Spanish variation
I'm pretty sure 1.e4 Nc6 2.Bb5 d5 is satisfactory for Black while keeping its distinctive flavor.
If you're going to put something on the c6 square on your first move, make it a pawn!
1.e4 nc6 2.nf3 d6 3. bb5 nf6 4.d4 (i once played nxe4 in a tourney when i was an expert, after 5.d5 a6 6.bd3 i resigned in frustration over forgetting that line). a6 5.bxc6 bxc6 and black can try to play it like the old main line of nimzowitsch declined via bg4, e6 d5 (the bb5 there is not that dangerous) or play g6 and try to show the bishop pair is superior to the pawn damage.
The latter is actually a little tricky for black since if white holds back on making any premature pawn moves in the center, black doesnt get any ideal pawn breaks for some time. Best plan seems to be nd7, bb7 a5-a4 stuff is possible. Sometimes, even qb8. Black should try to get c5 to either capture on e4 or try to swap one of his c-pawns without allowing white to give black double isolated c-pawns.
