Nimzo-Indian Defense: Three Knights Variation
Nimzo-Indian Defense, Three Knights Variation
Definition & Move-order
The Nimzo-Indian Defense, Three Knights Variation is a branch of the Nimzo-Indian that arises after the moves:
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3
The name “Three Knights” stems from the fact that, by move four, White has developed three knights (the two original ones, plus the queen’s-knight that has advanced to c3) while Black has only deployed the king’s knight. 4.Nf3 sidesteps the highly theoretical 4.Qc2 (Classical) and 4.e3 (Rubinstein) lines, aiming for quieter development and quick kingside castling.
Typical Continuations
- 4…O-O 5. Bg5 d6 (the Karpov System)
- 4…c5 5. e3 (Fischer’s preference) leading to Benoni-like pawn structures
- 4…b6 5. Bg5 Bb7 6. e3 h6 (solid, but slightly passive for Black)
- 4…d5 5. Bg5 c5 6. e3 (transposing to a Ragozin-style structure)
Strategic Themes
• White’s Aims: Maintain the tension on c4–d4, avoid doubled c-pawns by not playing 4.Qc2 or 4.a3, and build central control with e2-e3 and sometimes d4-d5. The move Bg5 often pins Black’s f6-knight, increasing pressure on the d5-square.
• Black’s Aims: Continue the Nimzo philosophy of exerting light-square pressure, decide whether to exchange on c3, and challenge White’s center with …c5 or …d5. Flexible bishop maneuvers such as …Bb4-e7 or …Bb4-f8 are common.
• Piece Play: Both sides fight over the e4 and d5 outposts. Because White refrains from fianchettoing or pushing f- or g-pawns, kingside attacks are rare; positional imbalances dominate.
Historical Significance
The variation became popular in the 1960s when players like Bobby Fischer and Bent Larsen preferred 4.Nf3 over the fashionable 4.Qc2 lines to cut down opponents’ preparation. Anatoly Karpov wielded it with trademark positional finesse during the 1974 Candidates Matches, prompting renewed theoretical attention. Today it is considered a sound, if slightly less ambitious, alternative for White that steers the game away from the sharpest Nimzo battlegrounds.
Notable Games
- Fischer – Portisch, Interzonal 1962: 4.Nf3 c5 5.e3 … Fischer uncorked a queenside minority attack and won a textbook endgame.
- Karpov – Spassky, Candidates (Game 4) 1974: Karpov’s precise maneuvering with Bg5 and Rd1 showcased the variation’s positional nuances.
- Carlsen – Giri, Tata Steel 2017: Modern example where Black equalized comfortably with 4…d5, but Carlsen squeezed out a win in a long rook ending.
Illustrative Mini-Game
The following 17-move miniature highlights a common tactical motif: Black’s premature …d5 allowing a thematic e2-e4 break.
Typical Plans for Each Side
- White
- Place the dark-squared bishop on g5 or f4.
- Reinforce the center with e3 and sometimes Qc2, Rfd1.
- Break with e4 when tactically justified.
- Queenside expansion via a3, b4 or minority attack b2-b4-b5.
- Black
- Undermine the center with …c5 or …d5.
- Maintain bishop pair; decide the optimal moment to capture on c3.
- Target c4 after …c5 or pressure e4 square with …Ne4.
- Prepare …e5 in some structures (after …d6, …Nbd7)
Interesting Facts & Anecdotes
- Bobby Fischer allegedly preferred the Three Knights because, in his words, “it keeps more pieces on the board,” giving greater scope for superior endgame technique.
- In correspondence chess databases, 4.Nf3 scores slightly higher for White than 4.e3, challenging the reputation of the Rubinstein Variation as the “most solid” line.
- The earliest recorded use dates back to Aron Nimzowitsch himself (Carlsbad 1929), where he chose 4.Nf3 with the other side of the board—playing White against Spielmann.
- Because both sides can castle quickly, time trouble skirmishes in this line often arise from complex middlegame maneuvering rather than early tactical fireworks.
Why Choose (or Avoid) the Three Knights?
Choose it if you enjoy strategic struggles, dislike the risk of doubled c-pawns, and want to avoid heavily analyzed battlegrounds.
Avoid it if you crave razor-sharp pawn sacrifices and theory-loaded forcing lines—4.Qc2, 4.f3, or 4.g3 may suit you better.