opinions on the Nimzo-Indian?

I'm an e4 player so I just need a single defence as black against d4.

So far I've always used the the semi-slav. I enjoy studying its theory but I find it somewhat dull to play (except if they go into the Botvinnik). I don't mind positional games, but I prefer to play asymmetric positions.

I was looking into switching to the Nimzo-Indian, mainly for the following reasons:

- it seems rich of positional concepts, so I believe my understanding of chess will improve studying it.

- maybe it's less known at club level, even by d4 players (that usually encounter d5, but that's just my guess)

- starting with Nf6 and e6 it would be much easier to counter the systems (London, Colle, etc.)

I'm around 1700 OTB, and I'm planning/hoping to improve up to around 2200. I need an opening that would fit within that range (i.e. solid but not excessive in theory).

I know there's a ton of 4th moves for white, that's why I would like opinions of who plays it: are the variations intuitive or is it really hard to study/prepare? And especially, is it fun? ;)

The key words to characterize the Nimzo-Indian are versatile and flexible : many different ways to play for both sides - you'll have very strategical games and very tactical games too, and there are plenty of sidelines playable at club level.

I wouldn't say the variations are intuitive if you're not already a Nimzo player, but if you develop some experience with the defence and some of its pawn structures, you can certainly navigate a lot of variations by intuition, as there are many recurring positional ideas.

There's enough in here to keep you busy for the rest of your chess life

As for the fun part, I guess it depends on your definition : if fun means lots of tactical fireworks, then you'll find them less often than in the main lines of the Semi-Slav...

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6

Bad news dept: not everyone is going to let you play the NID vs. 1.d4, so be prepared to learn a few other lines too, such as the Bogo-Indian, QID or transposing back to some form of QGD. You'll also have to face offbeat openings such as the "Anti-Indian" 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 and other lines sooner or later.

Thank you guys, really helpful answers.

The fact is that I just bought a new book, "chess openings for black explained"; while I love the format/presentation of the book I'm not really convinced by the repertoire it proposes - I'm still willing to give it a chance though, worse case scenario I'll just go back to my semi-slav (hopefully with a bit more positional understanding).

The repertoire is said to be compact and interconnected:

Against e4: Accellerated Dragon (hyper accellerated to be precise, to avoid funny business with the Rossolimo). More solid than the regular dragon because it doesn't get smashed by the 9. 0-0-0 Yugoslav, but it can get into the Maroczy bind.

Against d4: Nimzo Indian and Bogo Indian. They consider the Bogo to be its natural partner, and reaching similar positions. In fact there's much less theory than the Nimzo.

Against c4: c5 and g6. If white plays d4 and e4 we get into positions of the Maroczy (that I already prepared to play the dragon). If white doesn't play d4, we eventually play e5 to prevent it forever. It analyzes also the case of white playing e3 and d4, and it goes into a better (for black) version of the Panov, because the N is already on f3.

It also deals with all the offbeat openings and the sidelines that white can throw at you. For example against 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 they suggest c5 claiming that is saves study time (I didn't have the time to review it yet).

In sum, it does seem compact and solid. I really like the idea of being able to take the sting out of the English without effort.

The problems are, I have to study the Nimzo-Indian from scratch (but then again, I've always claimed that studying new openings is good for the general chess development). And I'll have to deal with the "boring" positions of the Maroczy, where black doesn't have much winning chances. According to the book though, current theory is that black doesn't fear the bind.

I had the same problem when playing otb chess(at a higher rating), I prefered to play the Nimzo, but ended up playing the Slav because it is more easy to get the positions you know(imo). However both openings require a lot of knowledge about different positions.

The bogo is really solid, but hard to win with Black. I would advice if you want more unbalanced positions to play the KID, Slav a6 or maybe even to try the dutch defence(f5).

If you want only one defense, go for a Modern Defense!

You mean you'd happily play it as white or as black?

I have reviewed the lines that the book gives against the Maroczy, and I'm fairly satisfied because apparently there's a good counterplay for black against the bind.

Mainline goes something like this:

they exchange N at move 7 and then generally the plan is Qa5, a6, and try to push b5 with force (sometimes it works with cool tactics).

If 7. Be3 then Ng4.

If 7.f3 then they still exchange the N at move 7 and then the plan is a5-a4, securing c5 as an outpost for the N.

if 7. Nc2 the plan is still pushing a5-a4, and sometimes f5.

I don't know how solid all this theory is. I agree with pfren that Dzindzi material has to be taken with a pinch of salt (for example his system against the Alapin & Smith-Morra seems dubious). I also saw GM Melik's videos on here on the Accelerated Dragon and he suggests different approaches for black.

But then again, I'm just a club player. I'm studying openings with the idea to make them work up to around the 2000-2100 range so even if the theory is not top notch...

What that matters for me is that I get a playable position, that is fun to play, and gives reasonably winning chances.

I doubt that the average club player is so well versed against the Accellerated Dragon (while everybody studies the Yugoslav attack or how to play against the Najdorf). And probably most of them will go for some dubious attack rather than a positional squeeze.

Tell me what you think please.

Vyomo: the problem with your variations is, after 4...Nd5, whit can just take it

I said Nf6 is a mistake, gave the correct move as d6!

You're right though, Ng8 is the move, and white does get an advantage

With d6, there is no such advantage for white

yeah, john watson spends a lot of time absolutely slating that book in his review of it at the week in chess.

Not this one : the other repertoire (with white). I think the Black repertoire holds quite well, though the explanations are very scarce.

As for the Black side of the Accelerated Dragon : it's quite safe, but there are actually many positions where white has almost zero chances of losing, even at intermediate level (1700-2000).

the nimzo is great but a bit drawish....you gotts to play the K.I.D. if you want to win that weekend swiss tourney :-))

If you are e4 player, you should give a try to the Tchigorin... it was a revelation for me.

The Cons of Nimzo:

If I remember correctly GM Sam Shankland in one of his videos said that the Nimzo did not make sense to him.  I completely agree with this as the positions from the blackside are not very intuitive.  Additionally, I just don't feel right giving away the bishop pair so early,  but people make it work.  I am not sure why you are turning down the semi slav.  Sure if they don't play into the botvinnik it may get positional but the ideas are so clear!  You break c5 or you break e5, you equalize, and you are happy. The ideas in the Nimzo are definitely not as clear-cut.  Now proponents of the Nimzo will say oh you get to experience many different positions, but is this such a good thing?  why do you want to learn more than you need to know?  Frankly the semi slav leads to more similar positions with similar ideas which allows you to master the ideas and positions more easily than in the Nimzo where the variations are all different.  Finally, if you take up the nimzo you got to learn another defense in case they don't play nc3. 

Yes, i think it is a good thing, because the more positions you are familiar with, the more chances you will know how to play them. Once in a game, I was playing white and it went into a czech benoni as white. If i had played the czech benoni as black, i would know what to do, but since i didn't i came up with a bad plan, and i lost the game.

The nimzo might not be intuitive to you because it doesn't fit your style, and that's okay. 

Also, if you play the nid, it is relativly easy to learn the ideas of the qid as well

snar: What I am saying is if you play too many positions you will surely get experience in all of them, but you won't be able to understand the position to the same degree if you focused only on one or two positions. That is why its not reccomended to learn multiple defenses to lets say d4 because you spread yourself too thinly.  

in the nid, there are a couple of plans. One of which is pressure on white's doubled c pawns. The second, as in most of blacks openings against d4, is controlling e4. There are more plans, but at least in my experience, these are far more prevalent than other tries for black. These two plans are not just specific to the nid, the ideas will help me fight against any doubled pawns i play against or how to attack a certain square.

I do see what you are trying to say though.

@ pellik: thank you very much, I appreciate.

Every dragon player is well aware of the trick with Nd5. But it doesn’t seem to be a problem in my repertoire book. Qa5 is immediately followed by Rfc8, more often than not when the King is still next to the Queen. The only time when the exchange of the e pawn is possible doesn’t lead anywhere for white (see above).

There’s also a line in which black voluntarily accepts to exchange his e pawn, but against the c pawn:

I would be more concerned of white putting his rooks on b1 and c1 and just pushing, like you said. It seems a natural plan. I believe the point of the lines that I’m studying is that black tries to break the bind immediately. I understand if I just sit around things will turn ugly, but black aggressively attacks the bind.

For example, here’s a line that I like:

For the English with fianchetto, my setup is with pawns on c5, d6, e5. Knight goes to e7 to support the other knight on c6 that is under fire. On the queenside I have pawn in a5 and rook on b8. Usually I have counterplay pushing my b pawn.

I can’t say that I would be comfortable playing those positions, and I just started reviewing them. In any case against the English I’ll be forced to play positions similar to those, I don’t have a good system against 1.c4 yet. I had the pipe dream that I could “conquer” the Maroczy so being happy playing it both in the Accelerated Dragon and against the English. But I realize that it’s really effective, surely won’t be a walk in the park to fight it.

I too made a switch from the Semi-Slav to the Nimzo and Queen's Indian some years ago. Actually, the major problem I had with the S-S was it hardly ever came up! I found that many club level players couldn't even name the opening correctly: they'd call it a Slav or a QGD. Unsurprisingly, they knew zero theory. When the position after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 (the move order being chosen to avoid the horribly popular and horribly dull exchange variation) 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3 c6 arose, most of my opponents would just take on d5. That's a pretty harmless version of the QGD Exchange, so I could often get an easy game, but it meant that the time I'd spent studying the theoretical lines of the S-S were largely wasted.

With the Nimzo, otoh, you know that even if the game leaves theory quite quickly, its likely that you'll be able to apply what you've learnt to the resulting positions, assuming you've taken a sensible approach to learning the opening; i.e. learning ideas and not just moves.

One other thing: if you haven't read Nimzowitsch's My System, go out and get a copy!

Good Luck!