Queen's Pawn: Bogoljubow-Miles, 2.Nf3

Queen's Pawn: Bogoljubow-Miles, 2.Nf3

Definition

The Bogoljubow-Miles system arises after the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3. White develops the king’s knight instead of the more usual 2.c4, deliberately keeping the c-pawn at home. The line belongs to ECO code A46 and is classed as a “Queen’s-Pawn Game” rather than a full-blooded Indian Defence, because the absence of an early c-pawn advance prevents the Nimzo-Indian, Queen’s Indian and Grünfeld setups from appearing in their traditional forms.

Typical Move Order

The starting position is reached after just two moves:

• 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3

From here the game can branch into several structures depending on how both players continue:

• 2…d5  →  Colle-Zukertort or London-type positions after 3.e3 or 3.Bf4.
• 2…g6  →  Torre Attack with 3.Bg5, or a King’s Indian setup if White later plays c4.
• 2…e6  →  “Anti-Queen’s Indian” ideas; White may choose a quiet 3.e3 or the aggressive 3.Bg5.
• 2…c5  →  transposes to a Benoni after 3.d5, or to a Symmetrical English after 3.c4.

Strategic Ideas for White

• Flexibility. By not defining the c-pawn early, White keeps Black guessing and can choose among Colle, London, Torre, Catalan or even Queen’s Gambit structures later.
• Rapid Development. After 3.e3, 4.Bd3, 5.O-O White can castle quickly and aim for a central pawn break with e4.
• Anti-theory Appeal. Much less concrete theory than 2.c4; ideal for players who want a “playable surprise” weapon.
• Preventing the Nimzo-Indian. By not playing Nc3, White never allows …Bb4 pinning the knight.

Plans for Black

• Classical Centre. With …d5 and …e6 Black can aim for a Queen’s-Gambit-style pawn structure while keeping equality.
• Fianchetto Systems. After …g6 Black reaches a King’s Indian layout; if White stays modest, Black may grab space with …c5.
• Immediate …c5. Striving for Benoni or Benko play, hoping White’s Nf3 proves less harmonious than the normal Nc3.

Transpositional Pathways

The system’s great practical value is its chameleon nature:

1. Colle-Zukertort (e3, Bd3, b3, Bb2).
2. London System (Bf4, e3, Nbd2, c3).
3. Torre Attack (Bg5 against …g6).
4. Catalan-type positions if White later plays g3 and c4.

Historical Background

The idea of 2.Nf3 was employed in the 1920s by the dynamic grandmaster Efim Bogoljubow, at a time when strict adherence to classical central occupation was being questioned. Decades later, English GM Anthony (Tony) Miles adopted the line as a mainstay, using it to score upset victories against elite opposition in the late 1970s and 1980s. Because both men popularised slightly different continuations (Bogoljubow preferred e3 systems, Miles favoured Bg5), modern opening encyclopedias list the move with a hyphenated name.

Illustrative Game

The following miniature shows Miles’s dynamic handling against a fianchetto setup:

White’s 3.Bg5 and later e4 seize space and create tactical possibilities on the kingside.

Interesting Facts & Anecdotes

• The Miles Toolbox. Tony Miles occasionally used the move order 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4!?, achieving a London structure while keeping Black’s light-squared bishop locked in.
• Bogoljubow’s World-Championship Preparation. Against Alekhine in the 1929 and 1934 title matches, Bogoljubow incorporated 2.Nf3 to avoid heavily analysed Queen’s-Indian theory—an early example of opening “sidestepping” at the highest level.
• Practical Success. Database statistics hover around 54–55 % for White in the 2.Nf3 complex across all time controls, a healthy score for a line with limited theory.
• Modern Revival. The system is a favourite of rapid-play specialists such as GM Baadur Jobava, who often employs quirky early-h3 lines after 2.Nf3 g6 3.h3!?

When to Add It to Your Repertoire

Choose the Bogoljubow-Miles if you:

• Prefer system-based openings with clear piece-development plans.
• Want to minimise theoretical duels against the Nimzo-Indian or Grünfeld.
• Like the option of switching between London, Colle and Torre ideas depending on Black’s setup.