Nimzo-Indian: Gligoric, Bernstein & Exchange Variation

Nimzo-Indian Defense

Definition

The Nimzo-Indian Defense is a hyper-modern opening that arises after the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4. Black immediately pins the knight on c3 and delays the advance …d5 until the centre clarifies, aiming to control the dark squares with pieces rather than pawns.

Typical Move-order

The core position is reached in only three moves, but several transpositions are possible from the Queen’s Gambit, Catalan and Indian-Game families.

• 3…Bb4 is the critical move that distinguishes the Nimzo-Indian from the closely-related Queen’s Indian (3…b6) and Bogo-Indian (3…Bb4+ after 2.Nf3).
• If White avoids 3.Nc3 (e.g. 3.Nf3), the Nimzo cannot be played.

Strategic Themes

• Control of e4. By pinning the knight, Black prevents the immediate e2-e4 break.
• Pressure on c- and d-files. Black often plays …c5 or …d5, leaving White with an IQP or hanging pawns.
• Bishop pair dilemma. Black frequently surrenders the dark-squared bishop (…Bxc3) in exchange for structural weaknesses in White’s camp (doubled c-pawns). Whether the bishop pair or the pawn structure is more valuable dictates much of the ensuing play.

Historical Significance

Named after the Latvian-born theoretician Aron Nimzowitsch, the opening epitomises his hyper-modern ideas published in My System (1925). It was revolutionary at the time because Black invites White to occupy the centre with pawns, planning to undermine it later with piece play.

Famous Example

One of the earliest showcase games was Bogoljubov – Nimzowitsch, Berlin 1928.

Instructive points include the timely …d5 break and the harmonious placement of Black’s minor pieces.

Interesting Facts

• The Nimzo-Indian is one of the rare openings that appears in the repertoire of every World Champion from Alekhine to Carlsen.
• It scores well for Black in databases across all time controls .

Gligorić Variation (Rubinstein System with 5.Bd3)

Definition

The Gligorić Variation of the Nimzo-Indian arises after the sequence 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3. It is a branch of the Rubinstein System (4.e3) in which White quickly develops the queen’s bishop to d3 instead of the more common e2.

Strategic Aims

• Rapid Kingside Initiative. By placing the bishop on d3, White eyes the h7-square and prepares a potential e3-e4 break.
• Flexible Pawn Structure. White keeps options open regarding c- and d-pawn tension; Black must decide whether to play …d5, …c5 or remain fluid.
• Piece Activity over Structure. Unlike the Sämisch (4.a3) or Classical (4.Qc2), White does not insist on the bishop pair and is content to maximise piece activity.

Historical Background

The line is named after the legendary Yugoslav grandmaster Svetozar Gligorić, who popularised it in the 1950s and 60s. Gligorić’s fine handling of the middlegame structures demonstrated that the seemingly modest 4.e3 could still lead to sharp attacking play.

Illustrative Game

Gligorić – Fischer, Bled 1961, is often cited:

White sacrificed the c-pawn to accelerate development and ultimately mounted a direct attack on Black’s king.

Interesting Tidbits

• Modern engines often give near-equality, yet the line remains popular because it steers the game into rich, strategic positions with chances for both sides.
• Magnus Carlsen used the system to beat Veselin Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2012.

Bernstein Variation (Classical 4.Qc2 Nc6)

Definition

The Bernstein Variation is a sub-line of the Classical Nimzo-Indian: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 Nc6. Instead of the more popular 4…O-O, Black develops the queen’s knight to c6, adding pressure on d4 and preparing …d5 or …e5.

Key Ideas for Black

1. Immediate Centre Contest. …Nc6 targets the d4-pawn and supports …d5, challenging White’s central space.
2. Flexible Minor Pieces. Black can follow up with …d6, …e5 or …b6 depending on White’s setup.
3. Delayed Castling. By forgoing early …O-O Black maintains the option of artificial castling or a quick …f5 break.

Origins

Named after the Russian-French grandmaster Ossip Bernstein, who employed the line in the early 20th century. It experienced a renaissance in the 1980s thanks to players like John Nunn and Rafael Vaganian.

Sample Continuations

Two common branches:

• 5.e3 e5 – Black strikes in the centre immediately, often leading to an IQP for White after dxe5 Nxe5.
• 5.Nf3 d6 6.a3 Bxc3 7.Qxc3 a5 – Black clamps down on b4 and readies …e5 with a robust structure.

Notable Game

Kasparov – Nunn, Brussels 1986, featured a theoretical duel in this line culminating in a dynamic queen sacrifice by Black.

Fun Facts

• The variation is considered slightly risky because the knight on c6 can become a tactical target after d5; nevertheless it offers winning chances and unbalanced play.
• In correspondence chess, engines suggest 5.d5!?, pushing the knight away and claiming a space advantage, but over-the-board players still value the complexity.

Exchange Variation (…Bxc3 followed by a3 or Qc2)

Definition

In the Exchange Variation of the Nimzo-Indian, White encourages Black to exchange the dark-squared bishop for the c3-knight early, typically via 5.a3 or 5.Qc2 O-O 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.Qxc3. The resulting position features an unbalanced trade: White gains the bishop pair but inherits structural weaknesses—usually doubled c-pawns.

Why White Chooses It

• Bishop Pair Advantage. In open positions the two bishops can become dominant, especially if White later achieves e4 or d5 breaks.
• Long-Term Plan. White often plays e3, Ne2, f3 and e4, slowly building a central pawn mass.
• Reduced Theory. Compared to razor-sharp alternatives, the plan-based nature of the Exchange line appeals to players who prefer understanding over memorisation.

Black’s Counterplay

1. Target the Pawns. The c4 and c3 pawns can become chronic weaknesses; Black may manoeuvre pieces to attack them along the c-file or via …Na5–c4.
2. Piece Activity. With White investing time in repairing the pawn structure, Black strives for rapid piece development and central pressure (…c5, …d5).
3. Minority Attack. In some structures Black advances …b5–b4 to further damage White’s pawn formation.

Historical & Modern Use

The line was championed by early world-class players such as Capablanca and later refined by contemporary strategists like Michael Adams. Engines rate the positions close to equality, which makes the variation attractive as a solid yet fighting choice for both sides.

Illustrative Mini-Game

The game shows typical themes: White’s bishops eye the kingside while Black mobilises pressure on the c-pawns and central dark squares.

Anecdote

Garry Kasparov used an Exchange-type structure to defeat IBM’s Deep Blue in Game 1 of their 1996 match, demonstrating that “ugly” doubled pawns can house powerful bishops.