DailyChessLog: The Nimzo-Indian: Samisch Variation (Part 1)

What, Why, How?!

I've decided to keep a log of the chess that I study, all in one place online. Currently, I have about 4 different places that I'm taking note - two notebooks, a notepad, in word documents, on a dropbox folder. This has proved counterproductive when I want to go back to review things. Thus, the purpose of this blog is to centralise my study of chess.

I've recently had some trouble playing black against d4. About a year ago, I decided to drop my response to d4, the Queen's Indian Defence (QID), as it would leave me in passive positions or just down material. I'm looking now to learn the Nimzo-Indian Defence (NID).

The Nimzo-Indian is a hypermodern opening - the focus is not on simply planting pawns in the centre, but keeping flexibility and controlling the centre with pieces. A key focus of the NID is the e4 square and stopping White from occupying it with his pawn.

The Nimzo-Indian Defence

The NID begins

1. d4 Nf3

2. c4 e6

This is the first divergence point. What I didn't realise is that the QID results if White attempts to avoid the NID, with Nf3 b6. This is a nuance I didn't appreciate!

3. Nc3 Bb4

Black fights for the e4 square by locking down the knight and hopes to weaken W's position by doubling his pawns.

B avoids d5 here, which leads to the Queen's Gambit. I'm not such a big fan of the Queen's Gambit, but haven't really studied it that much. My book tells me, however, that 'Black has a meagre choice of plans in his struggle for equality, let alone counterplay' (Gligoric 1985)

This is the first point of divergence, and where I may need to spend the most time! It appears to me the most common responses may be e3, a3, Qc2. I suppose White could try Qb3, g3, Nf3, Bg5 also.

The Samisch Variation

I'll look at the 'Samisch Variation' first. This is where White plays a3.

4. a3 Bxc3

5. bxc3

The idea being that White now has a positional weakness in the doubled c pawns. This is a thematic idea, showing its head in most of the NID variations. Black is happy to let the game continue to the endgame, where these doubled pawns will be a significant weakness. However, White has strong play in between, and this variation appears to be very dangerous for Black (See GM Gserper's Article on Chess.com)

White's plan is to construct a strong pawn centre and use it to launch a kingside attack, which can often be decisive. The idea is to use the central pawns to gain space, to enable W to launch a kingside pawn storm, or to suffocate B. W has the advantage of more centre pawns, and he has the bishop pair.

As compensation, B has doubled W's pawns, has created weaknesses on c4, c3, b3 and a4, and has forced a waste of tempo by W with a3. 'B's most sensible strategy is to look for his chances in the endgame, not in the middlegame' (Gligoric 1985)

The opening is named after Friedrich Samisch, a German GM born 1896.

Responses from Black: d6-e5

To take one example from GM Gserper's post (omitting his analysis - it may be accessed via the link):

Not to disrespect the players, but to me, 5. ... d6 seems a bit too passive. I suppose the idea is to allow the light squared bishop (LSB) out, but given the pawn in e6, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere fact. I'll look at this in a second, but perhaps 5. ... b6 or 5. ... O-O might be stronger, holding on to e4 a bit longer. 10. ... Ne8 seems to be a badly placed knight, but at that stage, there doesn't seem to be any good squares for B's LSB, and f5 might be his only active play.

This game also shows that f3 is a thematic response to the NID, as is the e4, f4 advance. A similar game to this is Samisch v Grunfield (1929 Karlovy Vary). This makes me think I might avoid the d6-e5 plan. As Gligoric says, this is neither the most flexible nor the most energetic method. Black should attempt to block up the position without such moves.

Plans for B include to fianchetto the LSB, play c5 to lock the c pawns in place, and d5. Instructive is Rubinstein v Alekhine from 1914, where this plan is carried out. The move order is different, but transposes to a Samisch-type position by move 8.

Looking at the above position after W's move 8 (right), I get the feeling that timing is super-important in the NID. The position on the right is an important divergence point. If B plays passively, such as via 8. ... O-O, he finds a mass of pawns pushing him back in the centre. Thus, B must strike while the iron is hot to prevent e4, with d5. This also gives him a bit of breathing space, allowing him to put his queenside knight on d7.

As a side note, I'm not sure how I feel about the d4, e4, d5, e5 pawn formation. For me, regardless if I'm W or B, it makes me a little uncomfortable to constantly be checking if I'm going to lose a pawn in the centre or not. In the past, I've played similar positions and come out a pawn behind. Perhaps this is something in the NID I'll have to get used to.

I must also say, the position after move 16 (right) looks a bit uncomfortable. At first glance, the two centre pawns for White threatening to rush forward seem very menacing. But the B's pieces are all directed at these centre pawns, and Alekhine plays exceptionally well in picking off the pawn on e4. It would take a lot of patience and cunning to look at this position and find 16. ... Ba6.

The next example makes me reconsider the strength of the d6-e5 plan.

8. ... c5 seems a bit stronger than Qe7, forcing d5 which prevents the queenside knight from getting to a5 (where it can hit c4) or g6 (eyeing f4). Another option for W is Ne2, which might be a bit stronger. The other important move was f5, which either locks the LSB up or opens the f-file for B. The knights become more important with the c pawns locked up, so perhaps d6-e5 might be worth revisiting if followed by c5.

Anyway, that's all for now, I'll be back! :-)