How can you counter the Nimzo-Indian?

  Hi! I'm wondering, how do you counter the Nimzo-Indian? I have played it myself, and in most results have won. But also my opponents play it, and I hate getting doubled c-pawns. I try the Classical, the Rubenstein, and the Kmoch Variations. But everybody in my school chess club, including the best, even study more than me. I need help, badly!!!!!

O.

Sorry, well I wasn't really thinking.

What's the problem with doubled c-Pawns, anyway? I like having an extra center Pawn, which can protect the d4 square for me.

I've played the Nimzo-Indian Defense from both sides before. It is an opening that often times gets sharp and exciting play  However, I am typically playing it from the White side. A main theme of this opening is the doubled White c-pawns. Black is trying to prove them weak and White is trying to show they aren't easy to attack. In the Classical line (4.Qc2) then White can avoid the doubled pawns, but it always seems like Black has some line prepared usually ends up harassing the White Queen. I like playing the Kmoch (4. f3). It is much less well-known but still has a ton of theory and many of the great players have played this opening at some point. Naturally, 4. e3 (normal variation) doesn't weaken the Kingside as much as moving the f-pawn, but White will still get doubled pawns.

Exactly.  Bishop pair, semi open file, and an extra center pawn.

There are lines in the classical with doubled pawns.

Example:  1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 O-O 5.e4 d6 6.a3 Bxc3 7.bxc3 (7.Qxc3? Nxe4!)

Correct, but i was assuming that the OP's opponents were taking on 4...Bc3, and he was recapturing with the pawn.  That is what i get for assuming i guess, or else i dont understand why he is getting doubled pawns.

I play 4. f3, and btw on 4...0-0 the best move is not 5. e4 but 5. a3 and you indeed allow Bxc3 bxc3.

If doubled pawns are the end of the world for you then this is a great time for you to study that structure because frankly I think white's often doing fine with them and you should be okay with it. 

It's a really extreme example but if you want a fun game to study Geller - Euwe will be a good start (not in the line I mentioned, but you don't die if they take on c3 and you have to play bxc3 lol)

Except for move 6 of the Huebner Variation, Black should not be voluntarily taking on c3.  He should wait until White pushes him to do it via a3, spending a move to get Black to take.

The simplest answer is 3. Nf3, sidestepping the Nimzo entirely. If you insist on playing 3. Nc3, don't want doubled pawns, and don't mind playing with the IQP, there is the Petrosian Variation:

If you instead want to learn more about playing the Nimzo with the doubled pawns, Sokolov's "Winning Chess Middlegames" has a lot of material on such positions.

The line that he shows in his post, I'd assume. 

Good morning. I haven't faced the Nimzo in a long time, mainly because I open with 1. c4 and answer 1...Nf6 with 2. Nf3. I'm thinking about going back to 1. d4, in which case I would gladly go into the White side of the Nimzo. Not sure yet which variation, but the Petrosian is appealing. The Classical and the Leningrad (4. Bg5) are interesting also.

The naming of variations can be dicey. The variation in post #14 is called the Petrosian Variation in Gligorić's book on the Nimzo. The opening explorer on lichess calls it the Hübner Variation, while Gligorić calls 6. Nf3 Bxc3 the Hübner Variation and parenthetically refers to the Petrosian as the anti-Hübner. 

"my opponents play it, and I hate getting doubled c-pawns. "

But I bet you like getting the two bishops and a strong center, don't you? 

You should have a more complex reason for disliking an opening than that it gives you doubled pawns.  

The Nimzo is a great opening, the doubled pawns help you push to d5.

I OCCASIONALLY play the Black side of the Nimzo-Indian.  I've played it a couple of times as White, but far prefer the Catalan.

That said, it's been a couple of years now since I've played 1.d4 except occasionally in useless blitz games.  In over the board games and online games of any significance, like ICCF Correspondence, I predominantly play 1.e4 with an occasional 1.Nf3 (Typically a Double-Fianchetto or one of Ulf's lines - Exchange KID, Anti-Grunfeld, Catalan, etc) or 1.c3 (usually followed by 2.d3 or 2.Qa4 - Elshad System for White).

So the Nimzo-Indian just turns out to be a rare bird for me, and the few times it does, I'm typically Black.  Last time I can think of having played on the White side of a Nimzo-Indian was in the final round of the 2012 National Open, which I won.  Given my expert rating, I actually had decent results at that tournament playing in the Open section.  Lost all 3 games as Black (though came really close in one - had 2 legal moves on move 40 in severe time trouble - one wins the other loses - I chose the one that lost) and then 2 wins and a draw as White.

I think I might have played it one time since with a really bad loss, but not sure if that was before or after that June 2012 game.