Tal's Nimzo Line

 Craig Sadler  07/05/2004  10 comments 

Looking for a different try in the Nimzo-Indian? Look no further, Mikhail Tal shows the way.


A couple of months ago I played through all the games, with annotations, from former World Champion Mikhail Tal's excellent book 'Tal-Botwinnik 1960' on his historic World Championship, becoming the youngest World Champion ever.

One of Tal's main weapons vs. Botwinnik was the

')"> Nimzo-Indian Defence. There are many different variations that White can try vs. the Nimzo, the
')"> Leningrad variation, the
')"> Rubinstein variation
, the
')"> Classical variation
and the
')"> Samisch variation
, amongst others.

The line that Botwinnik played vs. Tal in their epic match was the Samisch variation. The idea behind this line is to force Black to give up the Bishop pair at the cost of doubled pawns. White considers the exchange on c3 to be advantageous and hopes the bishop pair and the extra central pawn will be in his favour. In game 4 of their match, Tal played one of the 'normal' lines involving castling. In games 14, 16, 18 and 20 Tal played 5...

')"> Ne4, preparing to push f5 and strike back against the centre in that way.

In the Samisch, White regularly dominates the center with his pawns and gets e4 in quite easily. Tal's idea, based on a monograph by Soviet great Mark Taimanov was quite surprising, going against the 'classical' rules of not moving a piece twice in the opening.

An interesting note, is that the ...Ne4, ..f5 idea can also be used in the Classical variation after 1.

')"> d4
')"> Nf6
2.
')"> c4
')"> e6
3.
')"> Nc3
')"> Bb4
4.
')"> Qc2
')"> O-O
5.
')"> a3
')"> Bxc3+
6.
')"> Qxc3
')"> Ne4
7.
')"> Qc2
')"> f5
It is playable in this line, it may be more effective, because not only is the knight clearing the way for the central thrust of f5, but he also gains a tempo on the queen.

Tal drew games 14, 16 and 18, but in the 20th game, Botwinnik made an improvement that Tal believed refuted the line entirely and was completely better for White. I had my doubts about that, so let's take a look at game 20. Notes are by me, and Tal where listed.

Botwinnik - Tal

World Championship (20) Moscow 1960

E24 - Nimzo-Indian : Samisch variation

1.
')"> d4
')"> Nf6
2.
')"> c4
')"> e6
3.
')"> Nc3
')"> Bb4
4.
')"> a3
')"> Bxc3+
5.
')"> bxc3
')"> Ne4
6.
')"> e3
Other moves that have been played here include 6.
')"> Qc2
as by Botwinnik in games 16 and 18, and 6.
')"> Nh3
as played by Botwinnik in game 14.
6...
')"> f5
7.
')"> Qh5+!!
The two exclamation marks are given by Tal himself, and he states in his book '...the twentieth game contained the most valuable theoretical contributions in the match and willingly or unwillingly, I found myself locked in a difficult struggle. ... When such checks are made at the outset, they are usually very bad checks, when Botwinnik makes such a move - it is profound, and unquestionably home preparation'. 7...
')"> g6
8.
')"> Qh6
In this position, Tal played 8...
')"> d6
I wasn't sure if this was the strongest, so I checked the current theoretical works, Modern Chess Openings (MCO) and Nunn's Chess Openings (NCO). In MCO the line isn't even listed, and in NCO it is listed with 6.
')"> Qc2
as the strongest, and in this line between Botwinnik and Tal gives 8...
')"> Qg5
and marks it as equal. I don't mind playing queenless middlegames, but Tal dismisses it in his book saying 'Several results of the opening experiment can now be discussed. The Black squates on the kingside, deprived on an important defender, are very vulnerable and the white Queen, by herself, brings disarray into a rather broken-up position. The loss of tempi by the Queen has no significance whatsoever since Black is unable to do anything about it. The attempt to transfer into the endgame by 8...
')"> Qg5
9.
')"> Qxg5
')"> Nxg5
10.
')"> h4
gives White a significantly better game.' Tal's game finished
9.
')"> f3
')"> Nf6
10.
')"> e4
')"> e5
11.
')"> Bg5
')"> Qe7
12.
')"> Bd3
')"> Rf8
13.
')"> Ne2
')"> Qf7
14.
')"> Qh4
')"> fxe4
15.
')"> fxe4
')"> Ng4
16.
')"> h3
')"> Qf2+
17.
')"> Kd2
')"> Qxh4
18.
')"> Bxh4
')"> Nf2
19.
')"> Rhf1
')"> Nxd3
20.
')"> Rxf8+
')"> Kxf8
21.
')"> Kxd3
')"> Be6
22.
')"> Ng3
')"> Nd7
23.
')"> Nf1
')"> a6
24.
')"> Bf2
')"> Kg7
25.
')"> Nd2
')"> Rf8
26.
')"> Be3
')"> b6
27.
')"> Rb1
')"> Nf6
½–½

Now, I'm not grandmaster, world champion, etc. etc. etc. but I have to disagree with Tal's assessment of the line. This line may be slightly better for White, but gives no more of an advantage than any other opening. Maybe the GMs agree with me, because I've only tracked down a handful of games in this line, with Black winning all of them, but White never playing 10. h4 Polgar-Bischoff diverted with 9.

')"> Qh3 The other two games I have were Brusi-Barbara Hund (WGM) 1978 and Gert Pietrse-Tony Miles Amsterdam 1988. Surprisingly neither one of them continued 10. h4 They both continued 10.
')"> f3

Brusi - Hund

Bagneaux Open 1978

E24 - Nimzo-Indian: Samisch variation

10...
')"> b6
In a game here on schemingmind.com, I once played this line (where I won with some luck) I continued 10...
')"> d6
11.
')"> Bd3
')"> Nd7
12.
')"> Ne2
')"> b6
13.
')"> h4
')"> Nf7
14.
')"> Kf2
')"> Nf6
15.
')"> a4
')"> Bb7
16.
')"> Ba3
')"> O-O-O
17.
')"> Rab1
')"> a5
18.
')"> c5
')"> dxc5
19.
')"> Bb5
')"> cxd4
20.
')"> Be7
')"> dxe3+
21.
')"> Ke1
')"> Nd5
22.
')"> Bxd8
')"> Rxd8
23.
')"> c4
')"> Nb4
24.
')"> Nf4
')"> Nc2+
25.
')"> Ke2
')"> Rd2+
26.
')"> Kf1
')"> Rf2+
27.
')"> Kg1
')"> Ne5
28.
')"> Nxe6
')"> Bxf3
29.
')"> Rh2
')"> Ng4
30.
')"> gxf3
')"> Nxh2
31.
')"> Bc6
')"> Nxf3+
0-1 It's not theoretically relevant, but there is a nice finish :)
11.
')"> a4
')"> O-O
12.
')"> Bd3
')"> Ba6
13.
')"> Kd2
Is the immediate 13.
')"> e4
attempting to open up the position a little better? 13...
')"> c5
14.
')"> d5
')"> Nf7
15.
')"> a5
')"> Ne5
16.
')"> axb6?
Allowing Black to trade off the Bishop was weak positionally. White's main advantage was the Bishop pair. Without that positional trump, Black cleans up. The alternative 16.
')"> Be2
wasn't much better after 16...
')"> Nxc4
The rest of the game for completeness sake is
13...
')"> c5
14.
')"> d5
')"> Nf7
15.
')"> a5
')"> Ne5
16.
')"> axb6
')"> Nxd3
17.
')"> b7
')"> Bxb7
18.
')"> Kxd3
')"> exd5
19.
')"> cxd5
')"> Bxd5
20.
')"> Ne2
')"> Nc6
21.
')"> Nf4
')"> Bb3
22.
')"> Ra6
')"> Ne5+
23.
')"> Kd2
')"> Nc4+
24.
')"> Ke1
')"> Nb6
25.
')"> Kf2
')"> d6
26.
')"> h4
')"> Bc4
27.
')"> Ra5
')"> a6
28.
')"> Nh3
')"> Nd5
29.
')"> Ra3
')"> Rfb8
30.
')"> Nf4
')"> Nxf4
31.
')"> exf4
')"> Rb1
32.
')"> Ra5
')"> Re8
33.
')"> Rg1
')"> Re2+
34.
')"> Kg3
')"> Rc2
35.
')"> Be3
')"> Rxg1
36.
')"> Bxg1
')"> Rxc3
37.
')"> Ra1
')"> Kf7
38.
')"> Bf2
')"> Bb5
39.
')"> Be1
')"> Rc2
40.
')"> Rd1
')"> Ke6
41.
')"> Bf2
')"> d5
42.
')"> Re1+
')"> Kd6
43.
')"> Rh1
')"> d4
44.
')"> h5
')"> d3
45.
')"> hxg6
')"> hxg6
46.
')"> Be3
')"> Re2
47.
')"> Bc1
')"> c4
0–1

Pieterse - Miles

Amsterdam 1988

E24 - Nimzo-Indian: Samisch variation

10...
')"> Nf7
11.
')"> a4
')"> d6
12.
')"> a5
')"> e5
13.
')"> Bd3
')"> c5
14.
')"> Ne2
')"> Nc6
15.
')"> d5
')"> Ne7
16.
')"> Bd2
')"> Bd7
17.
')"> O-O
')"> Kd8
18.
')"> Bc2
')"> Kc7
Possible the safest square on the board for the Black King. 19.
')"> g4?
The wrong idea at the wrong time. Opening up the squares in front of his King is not right for White at this time. Did he get impatient? A better plan would be to maneuver his pieces to attack on the queenside, possibly coming up the b-file. Miles takes advantage and wins easily after this. 19...
')"> fxg4
20.
')"> fxg4
')"> Raf8
21.
')"> h3
')"> Ng5
22.
')"> Kg2
')"> h5
23.
')"> Rxf8
')"> Rxf8
24.
')"> gxh5
')"> Bxh3+
25.
')"> Kg3
')"> gxh5
26.
')"> Ng1
')"> Bf5
27.
')"> Rf1
')"> Rg8
28.
')"> Bxf5
')"> Ne4+
29.
')"> Kh2
')"> Nxd2
30.
')"> Rf2
')"> Nxc4
0-1

In conclusion, Tal's line that he played vs. Mikahil Botwinnik in their first championship match is theoretically solid, and if there is a refutation to 5...

')"> Ne4 it's not in Botwinnik's line he played in the 20th game. Black still has a very good, dare i say better position in the line I suggested. It’s an interesting alternative, that isn’t covered very well theoretically and will be a potent surprise for your opponent.

Any criticisms to analysis are welcome as I'm not the strongest player in the world, as well as any other games that I may have missed (particularly any games found with Tal's 10.

')"> h4), or have been played by the Schemingmind.com members themselves, would be welcome in the comments.


Comments

 ReyFeroz 07/06/2004 

Bueno !

 karelen 07/06/2004 

very nice

 cleverman 07/06/2004 

Nice!

 Gary 07/07/2004 

Very nice piece, I've studied abit on the nimzo and I liked it but I've gone for a dutch instead now.

 MiguelVilla 08/16/2004 

I have frecuently found this setup with a black knight on e4 and a pawn in f5 as support.
Capablanca liked the move 4.Qc2 as in one of the variations given in the article,
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 O-O 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. Qxc3 Ne4 7. Qc2 f5

But Botvinnik almost always keeped the Queen in d1 and moved instead 4.a3 or 4.e3, making possible the move 7.Qh5 and what Tal believed was the refutation to the line.
Even so, maybe Botvinnik was still searching for a suitable refutation, for as said in the article he essayed also 6.Qc2 and 6.Nh3 and the game seems almost very drawish to be good for white with the final 7.Qh5
Personally I have to think what to do if one preferes the classical variation a la capablanca.

 refutor 08/19/2004

the position after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 O-O 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3 Ne4 7.Qc2 f5 isn't that bad. in the 90s GMs Adams, Timman, DeFirmian and Korchnoi all played this line. Obviously 8.e3 goes back to lines similar to above, so the other main choices for White are 8.Nh3 (which was tried by Anand in 2000 v. Psakhis. WHite won but I'm not sure if that was because of the strength of the White move, or the strength of the player playing the White pieces). 8.g3 (played by Bareev (W), Shirov (L) and Korchnoi (W)) i think Adams' 8. ...b6 may be the strongest there. a third choice is 8.Nf3 but i think that black should just get developed with 8. ...b6. are there any specific lines you had in mind that were tricky?

 MiguelVilla 08/19/2004 

I havent had any strategy to face that position and sometimes I was wondering which could be a good line to follow. At first view I like Anand´s move you mention, 8.Nh3 , for it makes possible 9.f3 with safety from Qh4+ by black, next constructs the center with e4 and gains back a tempo getting away the knight.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 O-O 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. Qxc3 Ne4 7. Qc2 f5
8. Nh3 b6 9. f3 Nf6 10. e4

I think that either black exchanges or not in e4 the final position is good for white; white will post a bishop in d3, the c1 bishop has g5 to develop and the knight f2, f4 and also g5, and it could come castling in any side, maybe long to avoid swiftly the b7 bishop. 8.Nh3 somehow hits the point easily, very tipical of Vishy. On the other hand 8.Nf3 seems more pasive and for my experience as a caffehouse player one could get an unnecesarily complicated position. 8.g3 and then Bg2 are again completely new for me, and it would need to be analyzed carefully, for if Bareev and Shirov use it, probably has some internal potential.

 abhay 09/12/2004 

hi all,if anyone knows,would u please tell me where i can find great games played by Mikhael Tal.

 Open Defence 02/15/2005

Hi Abhay,

You can check out The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal, a really beatiful book :-)

 Spohn 02/18/2005 

Brusi - Hund
Bagneaux Open 1978
In this game up above can someone tell me why 36...Bf1 wasnt played cause to me it looks like an instant winner!!

Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy | Copyright © 2002 - 2024

SchemingMind.com | Westhoughton | Bolton | England