By Manuel Gerardo Monasterio

Everybody, at every level, is playing the Classical or Capablanca Variation against the Nimzo. This practice is extended to such an extreme that playing black, I am going back to my old love, the King's Indian.

Why is the Classical so appealing to everyone? Because it is a very solid, low risk way of playing against the Nimzo. This means that Black is generally obliged to play for a draw. That is the reason why I'm returning to the King's Indian. A draw is often the inevitable goal of many games, but I certainly do not like it to be my goal from move 4!

And even more, unless you are Ulf Andersson's clone (I wish!), who just thrives in such hypnagogic positions, you are under the risk of been butchered by going asleep!

Nevertheless, if even after all these warnings (sort of Dante's words on the gates of Hell: "lasciate ogni speranza voi che entrate" -- abandon all hope those of you entering) you still want to play our beloved Nimzo, I will give some hints based on my own experience and on the latest theory culled from the best theoretical works (such as the Edward Dearing and David Vigorito books on the Nimzo, or Alexei Shirov's comments on his Nimzo games Chessbase DVD among others).

And now, let us get to business!

Van Seben-Monasterio
IECG-Master Class, June 2007
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2

This move is a direct threat to the strategic core inherent in Nimzowitsch's plan when he developed the Nimzo. Black is aiming to play against the eventual c4-c3 double pawns complex, and White is avoiding this for good. On the other hand, the move 4.Qc2 has two theoretical drawbacks: the first is the loosening of the grip over the d4-pawn and the second one is that White will get behind black in terms of development. But I wrote "theoretical drawbacks", because in practice most of the time black is unable to sufficiently exploit these two factors. If black could exploit them effectively, the Classical variation wouldn't be so solid and strong.

There are two moves that try to immediately profit from the d4 weakening, 4...c5 and 4...Nc6. Of all the usual plans against the Classical, 4...c5 is the one that I would recommend less, not because it is a bad move, but because White has been finding very strong devices to counter this move and we may say that theoretically white is getting the upper hand in all its variations. 4...Nc6, the so called Zurich Variation, is an interesting move with reminiscences with the Ragozin line against the Queen's Gambit or the Taimanov variation in the Nimzo Rubinstein (a favorite of the late Soviet Master Lipnitsky that Bobby Fischer applied in several occasions). Nevertheless, play in this line is rather complex mainly because Black is sacrificing flexibility (blocking the c7-pawn and deciding the place of the Knight rather too early). But as it is a rarely played line, it may deserve study as a surprise weapon if one knows what he is doing.

The move I have always played here is 4...O-O, recommended by John Emms in his classical EASY GUIDE TO THE NIMZO-INDIAN and advocated by most authorities as the more flexible, less committal and solid move. My second choice, if I would want to vary, will certainly be the classic move 4...d5, which was the most usual reply in the Capablanca Variation's infancy and has been revived by the research of many strong players, particularly by one of my biggest favorites -- whose repertoire I closely follow -- GM Oleg Romanishin. This is precisely the move that Edward Dearing advocated in his PLAY THE NIMZO-INDIAN (2006), also based, mostly, on Romanishin's choices in several games. But, since White seems to preserve a small pull, it does not change my overall view of the Classical Variation, and I prefer to stick to what I have experience on.

However, in my last game played in this variation, featured here, I chose another move, rather transpositional, but a little more confusing with the aim of taking White out of his rote

4...d6!?

But let us go for a while to the more usual 4...O-O, of which I will give to examples played by me.

5.a3 is best, immediately putting into action his original plan of getting the two bishops without paying the dues of a bad pawn structure:
5...Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3 b6 7.Bg5 Bb7 8.f3

One of several plans at white's disposal.

8...h6 9.Bh4 d5 10.e3 Nbd7 11.Nh3 c5 12.cxd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd8 Nxc3 14.Be7 Rfe8 15.Bh4 Nd5 16.Bb5 and we are in the sort of position that GM John Emms proposed in his book (1998). As you will see, White has most of the play, and Black is just trying to be fully awake to preserve the draw he most certainly must get if he plays accurately. I don't know if you thrive in these kinds of positions, although they are very useful to train your positional defensive skills. Though I don't fear them, they are definitely not my cup of tea! 16...g5 17.Bf2 Red8 18.e4 N5f6 19.Rc1 Rac8 20.dxc5 Nxc5 21.Be3 Nd3+ 22.Bxd3 Rxd3 23.Rxc8+ Bxc8 24.Bd2 e5 25.Nf2 Rd8 26.Bc3 Re8 27.h4 Kg7 28.hxg5 hxg5 29.Nd1 Nd7 30.b4 Nf8 31.Ne3 Ng6 32.b5 Be6 33.g3 f6 34.Bb4 Rd8 35.Kf2 Rd7 36.Rc1 Ne7 37.Rc2 Kf7 38.Ke1 Kg7 39.Ke2 Kf7 and draw agreed in Vujanovic-Monasterio, 2001.

Another popular line, which has been chosen by Kasparov with white, is 8.e3 -- instead of 8.f3 above – 8...d6 9.Ne2

This plan is also advocated by John Cox in his very interesting book, STARTING OUT: 1.d4! (2006). The idea is simply to control the key light central squares -- e4 in particular -- with the Knight, thus avoiding a weakening of the pawn structure by moving the f-pawn. This plan was played against me by the ICCF International Master Khalid Chorfi, who has also been years ago first board  for his country (Marokko) at the over the board Olympiad.

9...Nbd7 10.Qd3 

Instead, in an earlier encounter the great specialist and theoretician on the Classical Ivan Sokolov played 10.Qc2 against Timman: 10...c5 11.Nc3 cxd4 12.exd4 Qc7 13.Bd3 h6 14.Bh4 Rfc8 15.0–0 d5 16.Bg3 Qc6 17.cxd5 Nxd5 18.Be4 N7f6 19.Nxd5 Qxc2 20.Nxf6+ gxf6 21.Bxc2 Rxc2 22.b4 Rd8, 1/2-1/2, Sokolov-Timman, Amsterdam 1996.   

10...Ba6!

Aiming for d5.

11.Nc3 

Instead, Cox in his aforementioned book recommends 11.b4!? as in Kasparov-Grischuk which followed 11.b4 c5  12.b5 Bb7 13.Nc3 a6  (13...Rc8!? 14.d5 exd5 15.cxd5 Re8 16.Be2 h6 17.Bh4 c4 18.Qc2 g5 19.Bg3 Nxd5 20.Bf3 Qf6 21.Bxd5 Bxd5 22.0–0 Bb7 23.Rad1 Ne5 24.Rd4 Re6 25.Rfd1 Nd3 26.h3 Qf5 27.Qa4 Nb2 28.Qxa7 Nxd1 29.Qxb7 Rxe3 30.Rd5 Qe6 31.Rxd6 Re1+ 32.Kh2 Nxf2 33.Bxf2 Qxd6+ 34.Bg3 Rb8 35.Qf3 Qe6 36.Bxb8 Qe3 37.Nd5 Qxf3 38.gxf3 Rd1 39.Nc3 Rd3 40.Be5 Rxf3 41.a4 Re3 42.Bd4 Rd3 43.Be5 f6 44.Bxf6 Kf7 45.Bh8 Ke6 46.Kg2 h5 47.a5 bxa5 48.b6 Kd7 49.Na4 Kc6 50.Bc3 h4 51.b7 Rg3+, 0–1, Rowson-Beliavsky, Mallorca 2004) 14.f3 h6 15.Bh4 Qe7 (again, as in a GM class email encounter, it was possible to play 15...d5 16.cxd5 exd5 17.Qd2 c4 18.bxa6 Rxa6 19.Be2 Bc6 20.0–0 b5 21.Rfb1 Qe7 22.Nxb5 Bxb5 23.Rxb5 Rxa3 24.Rxa3 Qxa3 25.Ra5 Qb3 26.Bd1 Qb7 27.Bc2 Ra8 28.Rxa8+ Qxa8 29.Qc1 Qa7 30.Be1 Nf8 31.Bb4 Ne6 32.Qa3 Qb7 33.Bc3 Ne8 34.Qb4 Qa7 35.Qb5 Nf6 36.Ba5 g6 37.Qb6 Qxb6 38.Bxb6 Nd7 39.Ba5 f5 40.Kf2 Kf7 41.g3 Nf6 42.h3 Ng5 43.Kg2 Ke6 44.g4 fxg4 45.hxg4 Kf7 46.Bd2 Ne6 47.Kg3 h5 48.gxh5 Nxh5+ 49.Kf2 Nf6 50.Bb4 g5 51.Bf5 Ng7 52.Bc8 Kg6 53.Bb7 Nf5 54.Bc5 g4 55.e4 g3+ 56.Kg2 Ne3+, 1/2-1/2, Rodriguez-Sirota, IECG email 2003) 16.Be2 cxd4 17.Qxd4 e5 18.Qd1 g5 19.Bg3 axb5 20.Nxb5 d5 21.0–0 Rac8 22.Qb3 Qe6 23.Qb4 Rc5 24.a4 Rfc8 25.Rfd1 Ba8 26.Ra3 g4 27.cxd5 Rxd5 28.e4 Rxd1+ 29.Bxd1 gxf3 30.gxf3 Nc5 31.Qb2 Nfd7 32.Qd2 Bc6 33.Nd6 Ra8 34.Be2 Qf6 35.Nf5 Kh7 36.Bc4 Ne6 37.Rd3 Ndc5 38.Rd6 Bxe4 39.Bxe6 Bxf5 40.Bxf7 Qg5 41.Qxg5 hxg5 42.Bxe5 Nd7 43.Bc3 Nc5 44.h4 gxh4 45.a5 bxa5 46.Rd5 Na4 47.Bd4 Bg6 48.Be6 Bc2 49.f4 Rb8 50.Rh5+ Kg6 51.Rg5+ Kh6 52.Bf7 Bd1 53.Kh2 Rd8 54.Bf6 Rc8 55.Be6 Rc6 56.Bg7+ Kh7 57.Bf5+ Kg8 58.Be4 Rc5 59.Bd5+ Kh7 60.Bd4 Rc2+ 61.Kh3 Rc7 62.Be4+ Kh6 63.Rg8, 1–0, Kasparov-Grischuk, Rethymnon 2003.

11...d5 12.Qc2 Bxc4 13.Bxc4 dxc4 14.Qa4 h6 15.Bh4 c5 16.Qxc4 cxd4 17.Qxd4 

And here I decided to take a different road than the one traveled by Garry Kasparov himself, this time with Black!

17...g5

Kasparov played 17...Nc5 18.Bxf6 Qxf6 19.Qxf6 gxf6 20.0–0–0 Rfc8 21.Kb1 f5 22.Rd4 Nb3 23.Rd3 Nc5 24.Rd4 Nb3 25.Rh4 Kg7 26.Ka2 Nc5 27.Rd1 a6 28.Rhd4 b5 29.g4 fxg4 30.Rxg4+ Kf8 31.Rh4 Ke7 32.Rdd4 Rg8 33.Rxh6 Rg2 34.f4 Rd8 35.f5 Rxd4 36.exd4 Nd3 37.fxe6 fxe6 38.d5 Rxb2+ 39.Ka1 exd5 40.Nxd5+ Kd7 41.Nf4 Rd2 42.Nxd3, 1/2-1/2, Ivanchuk-Kasparov, Rethymnon 2003. But I certainly was not at all sure about Black's possibilities if White, instead of 20.0-0-0, plays 10.Ke2 and I certainly did not like the outcome of Dreev-Kulaots, Moscow 2004: 20...Rfd8 21.Rad1 Kf8 22.g4 Ke7 23.h4 Rxd1 24.Rxd1 Rc8 25.f4 a6 26.h5 b5 27.Rc1 Kd7 28.Nd1 Ne4 29.Rxc8 Kxc8 30.Nf2 Nd6 31.Kd3 Kd7 32.Ne4 Nc4 33.b3 Nxa3 34.Nc5+ Ke7 35.Nxa6 e5 36.Nb4 f5 37.Nd5+, 1–0. The 22.g4! plan, keeping White's King near the center, seemed very nasty, a later example does not encourage Black either: 22.e4!? – instead of g4 which will come later – 22...Ke7 23.Ke3 Nb7 24.Rxd8 Rxd8 25.Rc1 Nd6 26.Ne2 Rc8 27.Rxc8 Nxc8 28.Kd3 Nd6 29.Nd4 Kd7 30.g4 a6 31.f4 b5 32.b3 Nb7 33.e5 fxe5 34.fxe5 Nc5+ 35.Ke3 Ke8 36.h4 Nd7 37.Nc6 f6 38.exf6 Nxf6 39.Ne5 Nd5+ 40.Kd4 a5 41.Kc5 a4 42.bxa4 bxa4 43.Kb5 Ke7 44.Kxa4 Kf6 45.Nd3 e5 46.Nf2 Ke6 47.Kb5 Nf6 48.Kc5 Nd7+ 49.Kc4 Nb6+ 50.Kb5 Nc8 51.Kc5 Nd6 52.a4 Nb7+ 53.Kc6 Nd6 54.a5 e4 55.Nxe4 Nxe4 56.a6, 1–0, Nikolaidis-Aroshidze, Nikaia GRE 2005. 

Therefore I chose to try my guns in a line played by a player whom I respect very much, although in the game in question he lost his way:

18.Bg3 Nc5 19.Rd1 Qxd4 20.Rxd4 Rfd8 21.h4 Rxd4 22.exd4 Ncd7 23.hxg5 hxg5 24.Ke2 Rc8 25.Kd3 Kg7 26.Nb5 a6 27.Nc7 a5

So far, we have been following the Dreev-Timman game which continued 28.Rc1 Kg6 29.Rc6 Kh5 30.Rc2 Kg6 31.Rc6 Kh5 32.Rc3 Kg6 33.Nd5 Rh8 34.Ne3 Rh1 35.Bc7 Nd5 36.Nxd5 exd5 37.Rc6+ f6 38.Rd6 Rh7 39.a4 Kf5 40.Rxd5+, 1–0, Dreev-Timman, Reykjavik 2004. But with hindsight, it is not difficult to see that Timman's 35...Nd5 is a dreadful mistake most probably played in time pressure, without adding that Black could also vary earlier. My opponent arrived to rather similar conclusions, for he was the first to vary from Dreev's play with: 

28.b4 Kg6 29.bxa5 bxa5 30.Rb1

Now, superficially, the position seems better for White as his pieces appear more active and menacing, but Black has sufficient central play and enough -- and dangerous -- counterplay on the kingside to discourage White from being over ambitious. I advise you to always look for this kind of somewhat hidden counterplay in similar positions, because it most certainly will save your day here!

30…Nh5 31.Bd6 Ndf6 32.Rb7 Rd8 33.Nb5 Nd5 34.g3 Nhf6 35.Bc5 Ng4 36.Nd6 f6 37.Rb2 Rh8 38.Re2 Rh2 39.Rxe6 Here International Master Chorfi agreed with my evaluation and offered a draw, which was dully accepted. Chorfi-Monasterio, IECG World Championship  Semifinals, 2003.

Now, we may go back to our main game, where I played the flexible 4...d6 instead of 4...O-O, a move which obliges your opponent to do a little more thinking in choosing his plan.

5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3 0–0 7.Bg5 Nbd7 8.Nf3 b6

So far, so good. You should have noticed that I postponed this move for some time, achieving my original intention of inviting my opponent to follow a different route from those that we have seen before. Now we are in a different scenario, where my opponent, with his next move, will choose a plan devised by that incredible thinker and superb fighter Viktor Kortchnoi.

9.Nd2

And here it is. White is aiming to have the better of two worlds, a strong center without having the Knight at the rim on h3. Nevertheless, the plan is sufficiently slow to give Black enough time to gather his own forces with good coordination.

9...Bb7 10.f3

10...h6?

Objectively, my last move does not deserve such a harsh sign, but it is certainly a move that does not respect the tactics of the position. The point is that Black has the thematic threat ...Ne4 in the air, and for that to be feasible the white Bishop must be on g5, at h4 it is no longer attacked and ...Ne4 disappears as a threat, which deprives black of an extremely useful maneuver. The dreadful epilogue is that I knew it quite well – I had been working on it a week before, while watching Alexey Shirov DVD on his Nimzo games.

In synthesis, black must avoid ...h6 until the possibility of ...Ne4 no longer exists. I was in a rush and I made the move, immediately coming to regret it! Do not forget it as I did! I should add that many strong masters have made this same error.

What should Black play here, then? My first choice today would be 10...Rc8!, a first rate positional move, which was seen in the following game played by Shirov (who is certainly not a specialist on the Nimzo with Black, a line he seldom plays with that color) 10...Rc8 11.f3 c5 12.dxc5 Rxc5! (Certainly, a truly grand master move!) 13.Bh4 b5 14.b4 Rc6 15.Nb3 bxc4 16.Na5 Rc7 17.Nxb7 Rxb7 18.Bxc4 Rc7 19.Qd4 e5 20.Qd3 e4 21.Qe2 Ne5 22.Bb5 exf3 23.gxf3 Qc8 24.0–0 Rc2 25.Qd1 Nd5 26.Qe1 Nc3 27.a4 a6 28.Be7 axb5 29.Bxf8 Qh3, 0–1, Irina Krush-Shirov, Edmonton 2005.

11.Bh4 c5 12.dxc5 bxc5 13.e3 Qb6 14.Bd3 d5 15.0–0 a5 16.Rfe1 d4!?

This is a position that you will find analyzed in CHALLENGING THE NIMZO-INDIAN, an excellent book that exclusively deals with the Classical Variation from white's point of view, by the American International Master David Vigorito, whose abilities as a theoretician I greatly appreciate. Instead 16...Rfe8 is also legal, for example: 17.Rac1 a4!? with unclear play according to Vigorito. Or -- after 17.Rac1 -- 17...d4!? 18.exd4 cxd4 19.Qc2 a4 again with unclear play according to the cited American Theoretician.

17.exd4!?

White avoids 17.Qc2 e5 18.exd4 exd4 19.Re2 Rfe8 20.Rae1 Rxe2 21.Rxe2 Bc6 22.Nf1 Re8 23.Rxe8+ Nxe8 as in Kiriakov-Romanov, Sochi 2006, where Black had no problem at all.

17...cxd4 18.Qc2 a4 19.b3 axb3 20.Nxb3 Rfc8! 21.a4

Now it appears that Black may have some problems after all, but the following move dissipates the fog.

 21...Nc5!

As far as I see, Black has enough counterplay in all variations, which was what Van Seben also believed, as he now offered a draw, which I accepted.

Of course, it was quite possible to play on, but both players wanted to keep their energies for other fights in the same tournament, which by the way is still in progress as I write this.

Okay. I think that the Classical Variation of the Nimzo-Indian is certainly a line to be respected; it is not the most common choice today just by chance. However, though it's solid and safe, it shouldn't be feared, although in some lines Black is in danger of being bored to death! That is my main reason for going away -- at least for a while -- from the Nimzo to the more risky but also more entertaining realm of the King's Indian!