History
The earliest master-level exponent of the Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack was the strong English amateur John Owen, who occasionally opened this way in the 1870s – essentially playing Owen's Defence, 1.e4 b6, with a move in hand.
In the 1920s and 30s, Aron Nimzowitsch experimented with 1.b3 but more commonly employed the move order 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3, usually reaching positions akin to a reversed Nimzo-Indian Defence (e.g. after 2...Nf6 3.Bb2 c5 4.e3 Nc6 5.Bb5).
Danish grandmaster (GM) Bent Larsen played 1.b3 frequently between 1968 and 1972, but the opening suffered a setback in the 1970 USSR vs. Rest of the World match in Belgrade, where Larsen played it against reigning world champion Boris Spassky and lost in 17 moves. [2]
The Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack received interest from Bobby Fischer, who employed 1.b3 on five occasions in 1970. A notable longer-term exponent of the opening, however, was Soviet GM Vladimir Bagirov who played 1.b3 on around 100 occasions between 1976 and 2000 with considerable success (scoring approximately 54% wins and 38% draws). Recent specialists in this opening have included Czech GM Pavel Blatny and Armenian GM Artashes Minasian. The Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack is sometimes used as a surprise weapon in super-GM-level online blitz tournaments, including by Hikaru Nakamura, Magnus Carlsen, Richárd Rapport, Ian Nepomniachtchi, Vladislav Artemiev and Baadur Jobava.
Variations
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | |
| 8 | | 8 |
| 7 | 7 |
| 6 | 6 |
| 5 | 5 |
| 4 | 4 |
| 3 | 3 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 1 | 1 |
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | |
1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 d5 4.Bb5 Bd6
If Black responds to 1.b3 with 1...e5, White has essentially two options, to allow or prevent ...d5. The main choice has been to proceed in true hypermodern style, allowing Black to form a classical e5/d5 pawn centre that White will then undermine. For example: 1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 d5 4.Bb5 (threatening Bxc6+ and Bxe5) 4...Bd6 5.f4 (further attacking the e5-pawn, which cannot take due to Bxg7 winning the h8-rook) and now 5...Qe7 or 5...f6 (in either case defending the pawn again). This type of line is very much in the spirit of Owen's original conception of the opening.
The alternative for White has been to contest the d5-square, rather in the style of a reversed Sicilian Defence, i.e.: 1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.c4 (see diagram). In this case Black can proceed either as per the Open Sicilian (e.g. 3...Nf6 4.e3 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5) or as per the Closed Sicilian (e.g. 3...g6 4.e3 Bg7 5.Nf3 with ...f5 and/or ...Nf6 to follow).
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | |
| 8 | | 8 |
| 7 | 7 |
| 6 | 6 |
| 5 | 5 |
| 4 | 4 |
| 3 | 3 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 1 | 1 |
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | |
1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.c4
After 3.c4, the opening could be said to have transposed to an English Opening (1.c4), but these lines occur almost exclusively via a 1.b3 move order. In this variation, White argues that since the Sicilian Defence (1.e4 c5) is one of the very best responses to 1.e4, acquiring a Sicilian Defence position with an extra move must be superior. In the Sicilian Defence, however, Black rarely plays b6/Bb7, and when a queenside fianchetto is played it is usually in extended form (e.g. a6/b5/Bb7). Play after 1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.c4 Nf6 4.e3 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 is likely to resemble a quiet Hedgehog-type line from the Paulsen Sicilian.
Returning to Black's first move, if Black responds to 1.b3 with 1...d5 then White again has two options, whether to prevent or allow ...e5. If ...e5 is allowed then transposition will likely occur to the lines given above after 1...e5. If White chooses to prevent ...e5, for example with 2.Bb2 c5 3.e3 Nc6 4.Nf3, then play often takes the form of a reversed Nimzo-Indian Defence after 4...Nf6 5.Bb5 (diagram). This type of position often arises from a 1.Nf3 move order (e.g. 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 etc.) and demonstrates Nimzowitsch's interpretation of the opening.
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | |
| 8 | | 8 |
| 7 | 7 |
| 6 | 6 |
| 5 | 5 |
| 4 | 4 |
| 3 | 3 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 1 | 1 |
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | |
1.b3 d5 2.Bb2 c5 3.e3 Nc6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bb5
The Nimzo-Indian Defence is a popular defence to 1.d4, and in this case White has obtained a version with colours reversed and an extra tempo.
The notes above give the three typical branches of the Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack: (1) playing against an e5/d5 centre, (2) allowing ...e5 but contesting ...d5 and (3) playing against a d5/c5 centre. Alternative first moves for Black (such as 1...Nf6, 1...c5 and 1...e6) are likely to transpose to either the e5/d5 or d5/c5 lines already considered. Other Black structures give White more freedom in handling the opening. For example, if Black opts for 1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 d6, then White can proceed with either (a) e3 and Ne2 and then contest the Black centre with d4 or f4, depending on how Black continues, or (b) c4, interpreting the opening as a reversed Closed Sicilian or as a type of English Opening.
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | |
| 8 | | 8 |
| 7 | 7 |
| 6 | 6 |
| 5 | 5 |
| 4 | 4 |
| 3 | 3 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 1 | 1 |
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | |
Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack vs. London System
One independent option available to Black is to play a reversed kind of London System with d5, Bf5, Nf6, e6, c6, etc. In this case White may change tack and play a double fianchetto , forcing through e2–e4 (via d3, Nd2 and Bg2) and disrupting Black's solid development . For example, 1.b3 d5 2.Bb2 Bf5 3.d3 e6 4.Nd2 Nf6 5.g3 Be7 6.Bg2 h6 7.e4 Bh7 reaches a form of Hippopotamus structure.
Move order issues: 1.b3 or 1.Nf3/2.b3
The issue of whether to play the Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack via a 1.b3 move order or a 1.Nf3/2.b3 move order is ultimately a matter of taste. The 1.Nf3 move order could be argued to limit the number of variations at Black's disposal and to channel the play towards those where White scores more highly. The 1.b3 move order, on the other hand, gives more variety and more scope for tricks and traps on the a1–h8 diagonal. It is also more likely to result in positions with which Black is unfamiliar. For example, after 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3, any Black players who open 1.d4 with White will be likely to have some awareness of the strategic considerations required to play a reversed Nimzo-Indian position. After 1.b3 e5 2.Bb2, however, Black is unlikely to have had much experience facing comparable positions as White in the rather rare Owen's Defence, and in this case has colours reversed and is a move down. While many of the 1.b3 lines are rated only equal by theory, the 1.b3 player will thus often enjoy an advantage in practical terms, especially at shorter time controls.
Jacobs & Tait [3] note that the 1.b3 move order has the added advantage that in most lines White has a greater range of options available because f4 is still playable. This is particularly relevant when compared to lines such as 1.Nf3 d6 2.b3 or 1.Nf3 Nc6 2.b3 where Black is able to play 2...e5, transposing to lines where White may have preferred to have had the option to attack e5 with both f4 and Nf3. Jacobs & Tait also note that a 1.Nf3 move order allows Black to play 1...g6, preventing White from following up with 2.b3.
This page is based on this
Wikipedia article Text is available under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
