Nimzo-Indian: Nimzowitsch, 5.Ne2 Bb7

Nimzo-Indian Defense – Nimzowitsch Variation (…5 Ne2 Bb7)

Definition

The Nimzo-Indian Defense, Nimzowitsch (or “Nimzovich”) Variation with 5.Ne2 Bb7 is a branch of the classical Nimzo-Indian Defense that begins:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 (Rubinstein System) c5 5.Ne2 Bb7

After White’s fifth-move knight retreat to e2, Black develops the dark-squared bishop to b7 (instead of, for instance, …Nc6 or …d5). The line is catalogued as ECO codes E32–E34 depending on Black’s and White’s subsequent moves.

How the Line Arises

• 4.e3 is one of White’s most solid answers to the Nimzo-Indian, protecting the d-pawn and keeping options open.
• 4…c5 is Black’s most dynamic reply, immediately pressuring the d4–square and hinting at Benoni-like structures.
• 5.Ne2 sidesteps the pin on the c3-knight (a theme in several Nimzo systems), prepares f2-f3 or g2-g3, and supports a later e3-e4.
• 5…Bb7 places the bishop on the long diagonal, eyeing e4 and often coordinating with …d5 or …cxd4 to hit the center.

Strategic Themes

Both sides enter an unbalanced struggle combining Rubinstein solidity with Benoni-style tension:

• White’s Aims:
  • Break in the center with e3-e4 or d4-d5 when prepared.
  • Utilize the unpinned knight to support f2-f3, reinforcing the e4 square.
  • Often fianchetto the king bishop with g3 and Bg2, putting long-term pressure on the d5-square.
• Black’s Aims:
  • Strike at d4 with …cxd4 followed by …d5 or …Nc6, sometimes entering an isolated-queen’s-pawn (IQP) structure.
  • Exploit the semi-open c-file and the latent pressure of the b7-bishop against e4.
  • Maintain piece activity; because White’s development is slightly awkward (both knights on the back rank), Black often seizes the initiative.

Typical Continuations

1. 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.Nxc3 (restoring the bishop pair) d5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 – a flexible IQP setting.
2. 6.d5 exd5 7.cxd5 Bxd5 – Black exchanges pieces and seeks quick equality.
3. 6.a3 Ba5!? – a rarer sideline preserving the bishop and leading to asymmetrical positions.

Historical Background

Aron Nimzowitsch popularized both the entire Nimzo-Indian Defense and this specific setup in the late 1920s, showing that …c5 and …Bb7 could challenge classical central schemes. Later it was employed by grandmasters such as Tigran Petrosian, Bent Larsen, and more recently Peter Leko and Alexei Shirov, who appreciate its mix of solidity and counterpunching chances.

Illustrative Game

Leko – Shirov, Dortmund 2003

Shirov’s 11…Bxd5 introduced a fresh idea of exchanging pieces before castling, highlighting Black’s tactical resources. The game continued dynamically and was eventually drawn after mutual chances.

Interesting Facts & Anecdotes

• The move 5.Ne2 was initially considered passive compared with 5.Nf3, but computer engines show it scores almost identically in master practice.
• Bent Larsen reputedly called the setup a “Rubinstein improved,” claiming the unpinned knight gave White more wires to pull later.
• Because Black’s bishop retreats to b7, many engines evaluate the position around equality, yet over-the-board it often becomes double-edged; club players frequently misjudge the latent tension on the e4-square.

Why Study This Line?

Players seeking a flexible, strategically rich system against the Nimzo-Indian without learning masses of concrete theory can adopt 5.Ne2. Conversely, Black specialists can use 5…Bb7 to sidestep heavily analyzed main lines such as the Hübner (…d5) or Karpov Systems.