Talk:Nimzo-Indian Defence

message: Although not a paritcularly good move, 4.Bd2 breaks the pin on the knight. It is played by only about 0.5% of games at the highest levels, but on a databae of players around 1400 I have, it is one of the most common moves (in fact, I believe it may be the most common, but would need to check this). I will add an entry for this soon. I see someone else (Krakatoa) think the same.
:Yes, it should definitely be mentioned, even if only to explain what to play against it! I've had Bd2 played against me several times. 91.105.5.242 02:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 4.Bd2

message: I was just looking at microfilm of Chess Review for 1937, and found quite a few games tagged "Nimzowitsch Defense" which were, in fact, Nimzo-Indian Defenses by the modern definition.  Of course, that other name has since been applied to 1. e4 Nc6.  So, be careful in your historical research! 
(Edit: Sorry, I had put Nc3 for Nc6.  I will learn algebraic notation some day!) WHPratt (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Name 

message: "...but White has the extra option of 5.a3 (known as the Botvinnik Variation). This forces Black to retreat the bishop to e7 or capture on c3, which transposes to a line of the Sämisch Variation long considered good for White because he will undouble his pawns at some point by playing cxd5..."
Since when has the Sämisch been "...long considered good for white"?  I'd say the Sämisch has been known to be adequate or mediocre for white and the undoubling of his pawns is a thorny issue he has to deal with for most of the game.  In fact his benefit is the two bishops but is saddled both with an isolated "a" pawn and the doubled pawns on the c file. 
Ranx0r0x
2605:6000:1007:C01D:2DA5:6D17:9111:35BE (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Read to the end of that sentence: the Samisch is good for White if he's given the option to undouble the c-pawns, and 4...d5 did just that. Cobblet (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sämisch known good for white? 

message: From the article:
Two lines where White does this (following 4.e3 0-0) are:
    5.Nge2 (Reshevsky Variation)
    5.Bd3 d5 6.Ne2 (Modern Variation)''
Now, "5.Nge2" and "6.Ne2" are the same move (the intervening bishop move hasn't materially altered the situation). Both of White's knights are a knight's move away from e2, but the c-knight cannot move there due to being pinned. So, is "Ne2" or "Nge2" preferred in this situation? I think it's "Ne2" but I may not be up-to-date. Either way, one form should be used consistently. 2.25.149.9 (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed – thanks. Cobblet (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency in notation 

message: "and gains play against the central light squares d5 and e4"
they are dark, not light.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.124.8 (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  dark squares, not "light squares" 

message: moo  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.124.8 (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  my mistake, sorry. d5 and e4 are light sqrs.. sorry. 

message: "Black must blockade the white pawn centre from advancing"
Did you mean the white center-pawns?
A "pawn-center" is a center assigned specifically for pawns.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.124.8 (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the white pawn centre" what does it mean?