Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Hello to everybody! In this defence I can't find the variation (4. Bd2...),also for Queen Alice it is out of theory, but someone play this move. Is there some benefit from this move that I'm unable to see?
 Thanks very much! 
|
|
|
May I hazard a guess? To take the opening out from the main variations of the nimzo- defense, mainly from the tedious defense of the c4 and e4 squares and the doubled pawn weakness.
|
|
|
It appears to be an old variation probably considered too passive these days. You can check it out here:
http://www.365chess.com/opening.php
|
|
|
Your guess it is possible Capaputi and also yours, Odie_Spud, but I ask you: is it possible that the great Nimzowitsch hasn't thought to "4. Bd2..." ?
Thanks for your answers.
|
|
|
I just realized this is the Tartakower-Duchamp Variation...theory says it is not bad but does not offer white much. On the other hand if Tartakower played it, there may be something worth looking at! I would try to find some his old games just to see how he played it because he was known to try obscure variations and put some life into them!
Edit: In his notes to the Englisch-Blackburne game (London 1883), Tartakower wrote of white’s 4.Bd2 “Strengthening his c3 and thus assuming, for the time being, a defensive role.”
After 4…O-O 5.Nf3 b6 he wrote, “Fighting at long range, quite in the modern style, for the strategic square e4. A trenchant line of play seeking a hand-to-hand fight in the center is 5…d5.”
I think Blackburne’s 5…b3 was recommended by Eric Schiller in one of his books.
|
|
|
Thanks Odie.  What you've wrote is many interesting! I've to look about the English-Blackburne game on the web.
|
|
