Hubbry Logo
Indian DefenceIndian DefenceMain
Open search
Indian Defence
Community hub
Indian Defence
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Indian Defence
Indian Defence
Indian Defence
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Indian Defence
abcdefgh
8
a8 black rook
b8 black knight
c8 black bishop
d8 black queen
e8 black king
f8 black bishop
h8 black rook
a7 black pawn
b7 black pawn
c7 black pawn
d7 black pawn
e7 black pawn
f7 black pawn
g7 black pawn
h7 black pawn
f6 black knight
d4 white pawn
a2 white pawn
b2 white pawn
c2 white pawn
e2 white pawn
f2 white pawn
g2 white pawn
h2 white pawn
a1 white rook
b1 white knight
c1 white bishop
d1 white queen
e1 white king
f1 white bishop
g1 white knight
h1 white rook
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Moves1.d4 Nf6
ECO
  • A45–A79
  • D70–D99
  • E00–E99
ParentQueen's Pawn Game

In the game of chess, Indian Defence[1] or Indian Game is a broad term for a group of openings characterised by the moves:

1. d4 Nf6[2]

They are all to varying degrees hypermodern defences, where Black invites White to establish an imposing presence in the centre with the plan of undermining and ultimately destroying it.

Although the Indian defences were championed in the 1920s by players in the hypermodern school, they were not fully accepted until Russian players showed in the late 1940s that these systems are sound for Black. Since then, the Indian defences have become a popular way for Black to respond to 1.d4 because they often offer a balanced game with winning chances for both sides. Transpositions are important and many variations can be reached by several move orders. It is also possible to transpose back into classical openings such as the Queen's Gambit and the Slav Defence; these are not considered "Indian" openings.

The usual White second move is 2.c4, grabbing a larger share of the centre and allowing the move Nc3, to prepare for moving the e-pawn to e4 without blocking the c-pawn with the knight. Black's most popular replies are

but other moves are played as detailed below.

Instead of 2.c4, White often plays 2.Nf3. Then Black may play 2...d5 which may transpose to a Queen's Gambit after 3.c4. Or Black may play 2...e6 which retains possibilities of transposing to a Queen's Gambit or Queen's Indian Defence. Alternatively, 2...g6 may transpose to a King's Indian Defence or Grünfeld Defence, while 2...c5 invites transposition to a Benoni. White can deny Black any of these transpositions by refraining from c2–c4 over the next several moves.

On the second move, White can also play 2.Bg5, the Trompowsky Attack. Black can respond 2...Ne4 (see 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4), or 2...e6 (see 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 e6), among other moves. A third alternative for White is 2.Bf4, the London System. Another alternative is 2.Nc3. Then Black may play 2...d5, after which 3.Bg5 is the Richter–Veresov Attack (D01, see 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5); 3.Bf4 is the Rapport–Jobava System. Black may also play 2...g6 (see 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6).

This article uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves.

History

[edit]

The earliest known use of the term "Indian Defence" was in 1884, and the name was attributed to the openings used by the Indian player Moheschunder Bannerjee against John Cochrane.[3] Philip W. Sergeant describes Moheschunder as having been as of 1848 "a Brahman in the Mofussil—up country, as we might say—who had never been beaten at chess!"[4] Sergeant wrote in 1934 (substituting algebraic notation for his descriptive notation):[5]

The Indian Defences by g6 coupled with d6, or b6 coupled with e6, were largely taught to European players by the example of Moheschunder and other Indians, to whom the fianchetto developments were a natural legacy from their own game. The fondness for them of the present Indian champion of British chess, Mir Sultan Khan, is well known. But they are now so widely popular that Dr. S. G. Tartakover was able to declare, some years ago, that "to-day fianchettos are trumps." A sequel hardly to have been anticipated from the discovery of Moheschunder in the Mofussil!

In the following game, Moheschunder (Black) plays the Grünfeld Defence against Cochrane in 1855—some 38 years before Ernst Grünfeld was born.

John Cochrane vs Moheschunder Bannerjee, May 1855:
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.e3 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.Be2 Nxc3 8.bxc3 c5 9.0-0 cxd4 10.cxd4 Nc6 11.Bb2 Bg4 12.Rc1 Rc8 13.Ba3 Qa5 14.Qb3 Rfe8 15.Rc5 Qb6 16.Rb5 Qd8 17.Ng5 Bxe2 18.Nxf7 Na5 and White mates in three (19.Nh6+ double check Kh8 20.Qg8+ Rxg8 21.Nf7#).[6][7]

Another of the games between these players transposed to what would today be called the Four Pawns Attack against the King's Indian Defence. This time Moheschunder, as Black, won after some enterprising (and perhaps dubious) sacrificial play:

1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.f4 0-0 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Bd3?! e5?! 8.fxe5 dxe5?! 9.d5 Nxe4!? 10.Nxe4 f5 11.Neg5 e4 12.Ne6 exf3! 13.Nxd8?! fxg2 14.Rg1 Bxd1 15.Ne6 Bg4 16.Nxf8 Kxf8 17.Rxg2 Nd7 18.Bf4 Nc5 19.Kd2 Rc8 20.Kc2 Bf3 21.Rf2 Nxd3 22.Kxd3 Be4+ 23.Ke3 b5 24.cxb5 Bxd5 25.Rd2 Bc4 26.Rad1 Bf6 27.Bh6+ Kg8 28.Kf4 Re8 29.b3 Bxb5 30.Rc1 Be2! 31.Re1 Re4+ 32.Kg3 Bh4+ 0–1[8]

The term "Indian Defence" was popularised by Savielly Tartakower in the early 1920s. In his 1924 book Die hypermoderne Schachpartie, Tartakower classifies the Indian Defences under the broad headings "Old Indian" (...d6 and eventual ...g6) and "Neo-Indian" (...e6 and eventual ...b6). Under the heading "Old Indian", he considers the openings now known as the King's Indian and Grünfeld Defences. He also proposes the names "Proto-Indian" for 1.d4 d6, "Pseudo-Indian" for 1.d4 c5, "Semi-Indian" for 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3, and "Three Quarter Indian" for 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nd2, none of which came into wider use.[9]

The modern names "King's Indian Defence", "Queen's Indian Defence", "Old Indian Defence", and "King's Indian Attack" were attributed by Richard Reti to Hans Kmoch, though Réti himself did not approve of these terms. Réti also attributed to Kmoch the terms "All Indian Defence" (where Black fianchettoes both bishops after 1.d4 Nf6) and "Queen's Indian Attack" (where White opens 1.Nf3 and 2.b3) but these did not come into general use.[10]

Main line: 2.c4 e6

[edit]

Nimzo-Indian Defence: 3.Nc3 Bb4

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8 black knightc8 black bishopd8 black queene8 black kingf8g8h8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7 black pawnc7 black pawnd7 black pawne7f7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6c6d6e6 black pawnf6 black knightg6h66
5a5b5c5d5e5f5g5h55
4a4b4 black bishopc4 white pawnd4 white pawne4f4g4h44
3a3b3c3 white knightd3e3f3g3h33
2a2 white pawnb2 white pawnc2d2e2 white pawnf2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1c1 white bishopd1 white queene1 white kingf1 white bishopg1 white knighth1 white rook1
abcdefgh
Nimzo-Indian Defence

Advocated by Nimzowitsch as early as 1913, the Nimzo-Indian Defence was the first of the Indian systems to gain full acceptance. It remains one of the most popular and well-respected defences to 1.d4, and White often chooses move orders designed to avoid it. Black attacks the centre with pieces and is prepared to trade a bishop for a knight to weaken White's queenside with doubled pawns.

Queen's Indian Defence: 3.Nf3 b6

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8 black knightc8 black bishopd8 black queene8 black kingf8 black bishopg8h8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7c7 black pawnd7 black pawne7f7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6 black pawnc6d6e6 black pawnf6 black knightg6h66
5a5b5c5d5e5f5g5h55
4a4b4c4 white pawnd4 white pawne4f4g4h44
3a3b3c3d3e3f3 white knightg3h33
2a2 white pawnb2 white pawnc2d2e2 white pawnf2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1 white knightc1 white bishopd1 white queene1 white kingf1 white bishopg1h1 white rook1
abcdefgh
Queen's Indian Defence

The Queen's Indian Defence is considered solid, safe, and perhaps somewhat drawish. Black often chooses the Queen's Indian when White avoids the Nimzo-Indian by playing 3.Nf3 instead of 3.Nc3. Black constructs a sound position that makes no positional concessions, although sometimes it is difficult for Black to obtain good winning chances. Karpov is a leading expert in this opening. Many Queen's Indian Defence players also play the Nimzo-Indian Defence, and in fact the line 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb4 is sometimes called the "Nimzo/Queen's Indian Hybrid" or similar, and could be classified under either opening.

Bogo-Indian Defence: 3.Nf3 Bb4+

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8 black knightc8 black bishopd8 black queene8 black kingf8g8h8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7 black pawnc7 black pawnd7 black pawne7f7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6c6d6e6 black pawnf6 black knightg6h66
5a5b5c5d5e5f5g5h55
4a4b4 black bishopc4 white pawnd4 white pawne4f4g4h44
3a3b3c3d3e3f3 white knightg3h33
2a2 white pawnb2 white pawnc2d2e2 white pawnf2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1 white knightc1 white bishopd1 white queene1 white kingf1 white bishopg1h1 white rook1
abcdefgh
Bogo-Indian Defence

The Bogo-Indian Defence is a solid alternative to the Queen's Indian, into which it sometimes transposes. It is less popular than that opening, however, perhaps because many players are loath to surrender the bishop pair (particularly without doubling White's pawns), as Black often ends up doing after 4.Nbd2. The classical 4.Bd2 Qe7 is also often seen, although more recently 4...a5!? and even 4...c5!? have emerged as alternatives. Transposition to the Nimzo-Indian with 4.Nc3 is perfectly playable but rarely seen, since most players who play 3.Nf3 do so in order to avoid that opening.

Blumenfeld Countergambit: 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 b5

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8 black knightc8 black bishopd8 black queene8 black kingf8 black bishopg8h8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7c7d7 black pawne7f7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6c6d6e6 black pawnf6 black knightg6h66
5a5b5 black pawnc5 black pawnd5 white pawne5f5g5h55
4a4b4c4 white pawnd4e4f4g4h44
3a3b3c3d3e3f3 white knightg3h33
2a2 white pawnb2 white pawnc2d2e2 white pawnf2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1 white knightc1 white bishopd1 white queene1 white kingf1 white bishopg1h1 white rook1
abcdefgh
Blumenfeld Countergambit

The Blumenfeld Countergambit bears a superficial but misleading resemblance to the Benko Gambit, as Black's goals are very different. Black gambits a wing pawn in an attempt to build a strong centre. White can either accept the gambit or decline it to maintain a small positional advantage. Although the Blumenfeld offers dynamic play for Black, it is not very popular due to its riskiness.

Catalan Opening: 3.g3

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8 black knightc8 black bishopd8 black queene8 black kingf8 black bishopg8h8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7 black pawnc7 black pawnd7 black pawne7f7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6c6d6e6 black pawnf6 black knightg6h66
5a5b5c5d5e5f5g5h55
4a4b4c4 white pawnd4 white pawne4f4g4h44
3a3b3c3d3e3f3g3 white pawnh33
2a2 white pawnb2 white pawnc2d2e2 white pawnf2 white pawng2h2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1 white knightc1 white bishopd1 white queene1 white kingf1 white bishopg1 white knighth1 white rook1
abcdefgh
Catalan Opening

The Catalan Opening features a quick fianchetto of White's king's bishop. It most often continues 3...d5 4.Bg2. White also often reaches it via transposition with 3.Nf3 d5 4.g3.

Neo-Indian Attack: 3.Bg5

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8 black knightc8 black bishopd8 black queene8 black kingf8 black bishopg8h8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7 black pawnc7 black pawnd7 black pawne7f7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6c6d6e6 black pawnf6 black knightg6h66
5a5b5c5d5e5f5g5 white bishoph55
4a4b4c4 white pawnd4 white pawne4f4g4h44
3a3b3c3d3e3f3g3h33
2a2 white pawnb2 white pawnc2d2e2 white pawnf2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1 white knightc1d1 white queene1 white kingf1 white bishopg1 white knighth1 white rook1
abcdefgh
Neo-Indian Attack

The Neo-Indian Attack is also known as the Seirawan Attack, after top 1980s player Yasser Seirawan. The pinning of the f6-knight looks similar to the Torre Attack, but while the Torre is fairly common, the Neo-Indian is rarely played. The move order has been used by players such as David Janowski against Edward Lasker in New York City 1922.[11] The opening has been considered a possible opening surprise in the Secrets of Opening Surprises series.[12]

The most common responses from Black are:

Unless the game transposes to another variation, the Neo-Indian is classified as E00 by the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings.

Other lines

[edit]

Kingside fianchetto line: 2.c4 g6

[edit]

Grünfeld Defence: 3.Nc3 d5

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8 black knightc8 black bishopd8 black queene8 black kingf8 black bishopg8h8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7 black pawnc7 black pawnd7e7 black pawnf7 black pawng7h7 black pawn7
6a6b6c6d6e6f6 black knightg6 black pawnh66
5a5b5c5d5 black pawne5f5g5h55
4a4b4c4 white pawnd4 white pawne4f4g4h44
3a3b3c3 white knightd3e3f3g3h33
2a2 white pawnb2 white pawnc2d2e2 white pawnf2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1c1 white bishopd1 white queene1 white kingf1 white bishopg1 white knighth1 white rook1
abcdefgh
Grünfeld Defence

Ernst Grünfeld debuted the Grünfeld Defence in 1922. Distinguished by the move 3...d5, Grünfeld intended it as an improvement to the King's Indian which was not considered entirely satisfactory at that time. The Grünfeld has been adopted by World Champions Smyslov, Fischer, and Kasparov.

King's Indian Defence: 3.Nc3 Bg7

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8 black knightc8 black bishopd8 black queene8 black kingf8g8h8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7 black pawnc7 black pawnd7 black pawne7 black pawnf7 black pawng7 black bishoph7 black pawn7
6a6b6c6d6e6f6 black knightg6 black pawnh66
5a5b5c5d5e5f5g5h55
4a4b4c4 white pawnd4 white pawne4f4g4h44
3a3b3c3 white knightd3e3f3g3h33
2a2 white pawnb2 white pawnc2d2e2 white pawnf2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1c1 white bishopd1 white queene1 white kingf1 white bishopg1 white knighth1 white rook1
abcdefgh
King's Indian Defence

The King's Indian Defence is aggressive and somewhat risky, and generally indicates that Black will not be satisfied with a draw. Although it was played occasionally as early as the late 19th century, the King's Indian was considered inferior until the 1940s when it was featured in the games of Bronstein, Boleslavsky, and Reshevsky. It was Fischer's favoured defence to 1.d4, but its popularity faded in the mid-1970s. Kasparov's successes with the defence restored the King's Indian to prominence in the 1980s.

Other lines

[edit]

Often with the goal of avoiding the Grünfeld, White may decline to play 3.Nc3. The most common are 3.g3 and 3.Nf3, followed by 3.f3, which appeared in the quarterfinals of the Chess World Cup 2025.[13] 3.h4 and 3.d5 are also seen.

Benoni Defence: 2.c4 c5

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8 black knightc8 black bishopd8 black queene8 black kingf8 black bishopg8h8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7 black pawnc7d7 black pawne7 black pawnf7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6c6d6e6f6 black knightg6h66
5a5b5c5 black pawnd5e5f5g5h55
4a4b4c4 white pawnd4 white pawne4f4g4h44
3a3b3c3d3e3f3g3h33
2a2 white pawnb2 white pawnc2d2e2 white pawnf2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1 white knightc1 white bishopd1 white queene1 white kingf1 white bishopg1 white knighth1 white rook1
abcdefgh
Benoni Defence

The Benoni Defence is a risky attempt by Black to unbalance the position and gain active piece play at the cost of allowing White a pawn wedge at d5 and a central majority. The most common continuations are the Modern Benoni (3.d5 e6 4.Nc3) and Benko Gambit (3.d5 b5). Mikhail Tal popularised the defence in the 1960s by winning several brilliant games with it, and Bobby Fischer occasionally adopted it, with good results, including a win in his 1972 World Championship match against Boris Spassky.

Black often plays 2...e6 before 3...c5 in order to avoid the most challenging lines in the Modern Benoni, as if White plays 3.Nf3 or 3.g3 instead of 3.Nc3, lines such as the Taimanov Attack are no longer possible.

Benko Gambit: 3.d5 b5

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8 black knightc8 black bishopd8 black queene8 black kingf8 black bishopg8h8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7c7d7 black pawne7 black pawnf7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6c6d6e6f6 black knightg6h66
5a5b5 black pawnc5 black pawnd5 white pawne5f5g5h55
4a4b4c4 white pawnd4e4f4g4h44
3a3b3c3d3e3f3g3h33
2a2 white pawnb2 white pawnc2d2e2 white pawnf2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1 white knightc1 white bishopd1 white queene1 white kingf1 white bishopg1 white knighth1 white rook1
abcdefgh
Benko Gambit

In the Benko Gambit (known as the Volga Gambit in Russia and Eastern Europe), Black plays to open lines on the queenside where White will be subject to considerable pressure. If White accepts the gambit, Black's compensation is positional rather than tactical, and their initiative can last even after many piece exchanges and well into the endgame. White often chooses instead either to decline the gambit pawn or return it.

2.c4, other lines

[edit]

Old Indian Defence: 2...d6 3.Nc3 e5

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8 black knightc8 black bishopd8 black queene8 black kingf8 black bishopg8h8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7 black pawnc7 black pawnd7e7f7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6c6d6 black pawne6f6 black knightg6h66
5a5b5c5d5e5 black pawnf5g5h55
4a4b4c4 white pawnd4 white pawne4f4g4h44
3a3b3c3 white knightd3e3f3g3h33
2a2 white pawnb2 white pawnc2d2e2 white pawnf2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1c1 white bishopd1 white queene1 white kingf1 white bishopg1 white knighth1 white rook1
abcdefgh
Old Indian Defence

The Old Indian Defence was introduced by Tarrasch in 1902, but it is more commonly associated with Chigorin who adopted it five years later. It is similar to the King's Indian in that both feature a ...d6 and ...e5 pawn centre, but in the Old Indian Black's king bishop is developed to e7 rather than being fianchettoed on g7. The Old Indian is solid, but Black's position is usually cramped and it lacks the dynamic possibilities found in the King's Indian.

Budapest Gambit: 2...e5

[edit]

The Budapest Gambit is rarely played in grandmaster games, but more often adopted by amateurs. Although it is a gambit, White cannot hold on to their extra pawn without making compromises in the deployment of their pieces, so they often choose to return the pawn and retain the initiative.

Others

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8 black knightc8 black bishopd8 black queene8 black kingf8 black bishopg8h8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7c7 black pawnd7 black pawne7 black pawnf7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6 black pawnc6d6e6f6 black knightg6h66
5a5b5c5d5e5f5g5h55
4a4b4c4 white pawnd4 white pawne4f4g4h44
3a3b3c3d3e3f3g3h33
2a2 white pawnb2 white pawnc2d2e2 white pawnf2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1 white knightc1 white bishopd1 white queene1 white kingf1 white bishopg1 white knighth1 white rook1
abcdefgh
Accelerated Queen's Indian Defence
  • 2...b6 Accelerated Queen's Indian Defence
The Accelerated Queen's Indian Defence is playable; however, it is considered less accurate than the standard Queen's Indian move order (2...e6 3 Nf3 b6) due to the possibility of 3.Nc3 Bb7 4.Qc2 d5 (otherwise e4 will follow) 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.Nf3! and White was better in Alekhine–König, Vienna 1922.[14] James Plaskett and Raymond Keene analyse this line in their 1987 book on the English Defence.
  • 2...c6
This normally transposes into the Slav Defence if Black subsequently plays ...d5, however it may also transpose into the Old Indian or even the King's Indian if Black instead follows up with ...d6. One of the few independent lines is the offbeat 2...c6 3.Nf3 b5!?, sometimes called the Kudischewitsch gambit after the Israeli IM David Kudischewitsch.
The Black Knights' Tango or Mexican Defence introduced by Carlos Torre in 1925 in Baden-Baden shares similarities with Alekhine's Defence as Black attempts to induce a premature advance of the white pawns. It may transpose into many other defences.
The Marshall Defence (normally reached via the Queen's Gambit after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6?!) is better for White.

Knights Variation: 2.Nf3

[edit]

Note that lines directly or generally transposing to lines with 2.c4 or 1...d5 are not included in this list. For example, while 2.Nf3 e6 is common, it usually ends up transposing to other openings, particularly as it is often optimal for White to play c4 at some point. There are some independent lines, but they are relatively non-notable.

Spielmann-Indian Variation: 2...c5

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8 black knightc8 black bishopd8 black queene8 black kingf8 black bishopg8h8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7 black pawnc7d7 black pawne7 black pawnf7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6c6d6e6f6 black knightg6h66
5a5b5c5 black pawnd5 white pawne5f5g5h55
4a4b4c4d4e4f4g4h44
3a3b3c3d3e3f3 white knightg3h33
2a2 white pawnb2 white pawnc2 white pawnd2e2 white pawnf2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1 white knightc1 white bishopd1 white queene1 white kingf1 white bishopg1h1 white rook1
abcdefgh
Spielmann-Indian, main line: 2.Nf3 c5 3.d5

The Spielmann-Indian is the equivalent of the Benoni Defence when White plays 2.Nf3 instead of 2.c4. 3.d5 is White's usual reply. It has many similar patterns to the Benoni and transposes outright if White later plays c4. The variation is typically defined by White playing Nc3 without having played c4. Black plans e6 to target the weak d pawn, or d6, g6, and Bg7, while White plans e4 and to press with a space advantage. White can also play various sidelines instead of 3.d5, such as 3.e6 or 3.c6, which often end up transposing into other variations. The opening can also be reached from the Old Benoni if White plays 3.Nf3 after 2.d5 instead of 3.Nc3.

An alternative continuation is 3...b5, the Pseudo-Benko Variation. White usually either transposes to the Benko Gambit Declined with 4.c4 (if Black replies with 4...e6, this reaches the Blumenfeld Countergambit) or plays 4.Bg5, with lines quickly branching from there. 4...Qb6 is common to defend the knight. Black usually attempts a queenside attack.

East Indian Defence: 2...g6

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8 black knightc8 black bishopd8 black queene8f8 black rookg8 black kingh88
7a7 black pawnb7 black pawnc7d7e7 black pawnf7 black pawng7 black bishoph7 black pawn7
6a6b6c6d6e6f6 black knightg6 black pawnh66
5a5b5c5 black pawnd5 black pawne5 white knightf5g5h55
4a4b4c4d4 white pawne4f4 white bishopg4h44
3a3b3c3 white knightd3e3 white pawnf3g3h33
2a2 white pawnb2 white pawnc2 white pawnd2e2 white bishopf2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1c1d1 white queene1 white kingf1g1h1 white rook1
abcdefgh
Barry Attack, main line: 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 0-0 6.Be2 c5 7.Ne5

The East Indian Defence is similar to the King's Indian Defence, but with White avoiding c4. If White does play c4, the opening transposes. Commonly, White copies Black's kingside fianchetto plan with g3 and Bg2, or plays Bg5 (the Torre Attack), Bf4 (the London System), or Nbd2, intending to play e4.

The Barry Attack is an aggressive continuation popular with club players. The line usually continues with 4...Bg7 5.e3 0-0 6.Be2 c5 7.Ne5. White intends to follow up with a kingside attack, often playing h4 and h5. The Barry Attack has also been tried out at grandmaster level by Mark Hebden and Julian Hodgson.

This opening has a close kinship to the more-common King's Indian Defence and is often considered a variant thereof. The difference is that White has not yet played c4, and therefore retains some options.

The Wikibook Chess Opening Theory has a page on the topic of: East Indian Defence

If White plays an early c4, the opening will transpose into a King's Indian. It is also possible for White to support an early e4 advance, transposing into the Pirc Defence. Unless transposition is reached, there are four popular, independent continuations:

The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings classifies the East Indian Defence under A49 for the Przepiórka Variation and A48 for the others.

Other lines

[edit]
  • 2...b6 Accelerated Queen's Indian Defence
    Because of the committal of Nf3, the line beginning with c4 and Nc3 explained in the previous section is not available. This makes the Accelerated Queen's Indian somewhat more commonly played against 2.Nf3 than 2.c4. White often plays 3.c4, inviting transposition to the mainline Queen's Indian Defence via 3...e6, the most common response. Otherwise, the line is considered a transposition to the English Opening, with Black usually continuing with 3...g6 or 3...d5. White also often replies with 3.g3, 3.Bf4, 3.Bg5, or 3.e3, with frequent transpositions.
  • 2...d6 Tartakower Defence
    The Tartakower Defence plays d6 with the intention of later playing Nbd7 and e5. With the knight on the d file preventing White from trading queens and forcing Black to retake with the king, White rarely plays dxe5. Black can transpose to the King's Indian or East Indian by later playing g6 and Bg7. White typically responds by transposing to the Old Indian Defence by playing c4 (either on the third move or a later time), fianchettoing with g3 and Bg2, or playing Nc3, which transposes to the Philidor Defence if White later plays e4. White can also play Bg5, or Bf4 (intending the London System), which does temporarily prevent Black from playing e5, but which Black can respond to with Nh5 and potentially h6 and g5, trading off the bishop or chasing it away.
  • 2...h6 3.c4 g5 Nadanian Attack
    The Nadanian Attack is an aggressive attempt by Black to unbalance the position. The early 2...h6 and 3...g5 are designed to deal with drawish variations such as Colle System, London System, and Torre Attack. The line was introduced in 2005 by Ashot Nadanian, but has never enjoyed widespread popularity among top-flight players.
  • 2...Ne4 Döry Defence
    The Döry Defence (2.Nf3 Ne4 or 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Ne4) is uncommon, but was the subject of a theme tournament (won by Paul Keres) in Vienna in 1937. It will sometimes transpose into a variation of the Queen's Indian Defence but there are also independent lines.

Other lines

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8 black knightc8 black bishopd8 black queene8 black kingf8 black bishopg8h8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7 black pawnc7 black pawnd7 black pawne7 black pawnf7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6c6d6e6f6 black knightg6h66
5a5b5c5d5e5f5g5h55
4a4b4c4d4 white pawne4f4 white bishopg4h44
3a3b3c3d3e3f3g3h33
2a2 white pawnb2 white pawnc2 white pawnd2e2 white pawnf2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1 white knightc1d1 white queene1 white kingf1 white bishopg1 white knighth1 white rook1
abcdefgh
London System against 1...Nf6

Each of these lines are commonly played on either the second or third move, with the second move otherwise usually being 2.Nf3.

  • 2.Bf4 or 3.Bf4 London System
    The London System is more common against 1...d5, but still common against 1...Nf6. White plans to follow up with e3 and Nf3. The line often transposes to 1...d5 Londons once Black plays d5, but Black often plays c5 before playing d5, intending Qb6, threatening White's b pawn, which has been left unguarded after Bf4. Alternatively, Black can play g6, intending Bg7. White often plays Nc3 in response, entering the Rapport–Jobava System, which threatens a double attack of White's bishop and knight on c7 if the knight moves to b5. If Black later plays d5, this allows White to play the Barry Attack mentioned in the previous section.
  • 2.Bg5 or 3.Bg5
    The Trompowsky Attack, Torre Attack, and Neo-Indian Attack are anti-Indian variations that aim to disrupt Black's typical development after 1...Nf6 with an early Bg5, and avoid much of the detailed theory of mainstream lines. For example, in the Trompowsky, an early trade with Bxf6 exf6 or Bxf6 gxf6 that results in doubled pawns for Black can occur, a development rarely seen in other openings. The Richter–Veresov Attack is a similar opening which can be played against 1...d5, or arrived at via transposition against 1...Nf6, such as with 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5.
  • 2.Nc3 or 3.Nc3
    This move usually ends up transposing either to the Rapport–Jobava System after White plays Bf4, or the Richter–Veresov Attack after White plays Bg5.
  • 2.e3 or 3.e3 Yusupov-Rubinstein System
    The Yusupov-Rubinstein System is the equivalent of the Colle System against 1...Nf6. White typically develops the queen's bishop to b2 or leaves it on c1 during the opening phase of the game.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Indian Defence

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In the game of chess, the Indian Defence or Indian Game is a broad term for a group of openings characterised by the moves 1.d4 Nf6, in which Black responds to White's Queen's Pawn Opening with a fianchetto of the king's bishop (2...g6) or an early development of the queen's bishop (2...e6). These defences are classified as hypermodern, as Black allows White to occupy the centre with pawns and then seeks to undermine or counterattack it, often fianchettoing the king's bishop to exert pressure from the flanks. The Indian Defence gained popularity in the 1920s through the hypermodern , led by players like and , who advocated controlling the centre indirectly rather than occupying it directly. It became a mainstay in top-level play by the late 1940s, particularly among Soviet players such as and Isaac Boleslavsky, who refined aggressive lines like the . The opening offers Black dynamic counterplay and balanced winning chances, with frequent transpositions into related systems such as the or Slav Defence. Common White responses include 2.c4 (leading to main lines) or 2.Nf3 (allowing more flexible development), while sidelines like 2.Bg5 () or 2.Bf4 () can transpose or lead to independent games.

Overview

Definition and Characteristics

The Indian Defence is a family of chess openings that arise after White's 1.d4 followed by Black's 2...Nf6, encompassing several related systems such as the King's Indian, Nimzo-Indian, Queen's Indian, and others. This setup provides Black with flexible development options, typically involving the of the king's bishop to or a queenside structure with ...b6, rather than an immediate pawn occupation of the center. Unlike classical defences like the (which begins 1.d4 d5), the Indian Defence emphasizes dynamic counterplay, allowing White to establish a pawn center while Black prepares indirect challenges. Central to the Indian Defence is its hypermodern character, a that prioritizes piece control over the center from afar instead of direct pawn confrontation. Black often permits White's pawns to advance to e4 or d5, then targets this with flank attacks, pawn breaks such as ...c5, ...d5, or ...e5, and the long-diagonal influence of a fianchettoed on g7. These structures foster asymmetrical positions where Black gains active piece play early, contrasting with more symmetric classical openings by promoting imbalances from the outset. In terms of classification, the Indian Defence falls under the (ECO) codes E00–E99, which broadly cover responses to 1.d4 involving an early ...Nf6. The basic move order is typically 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4, followed by Black's 2...e6, 2...g6, or 2...b6, each leading to distinct but interconnected lines within this hypermodern framework.

Strategic Concepts

The Indian Defences represent a hypermodern approach where Black temporarily concedes the center to White, allowing the latter to occupy it with pawns on d4 and c4, before launching flank attacks to undermine this control. This strategy relies on the ed bishop, typically placed on g7 in systems like the King's Indian or Nimzo-Indian, which exerts pressure along the long diagonal targeting key squares such as e5 and exerting influence up to h6, thereby restricting White's central expansion and supporting Black's counterplay. The setup enhances Black's kingside solidity while enabling dynamic piece coordination for counterattacks. Common pawn structures in the Indian Defences often arise from Black's central challenges, such as the isolated queen's pawn configuration following an exchange on d4 after ...c5 breaks, which isolates White's d-pawn and creates targets for Black's pieces while granting the latter active play. In lines resembling the Catalan, particularly transpositions in the Queen's Indian, hanging pawns on c4 and d4 can emerge for White, offering Black opportunities to attack these isolated units but also risking overextension if Black fails to coordinate. Benoni-style tension frequently develops through Black's ...d5 push, locking the center and creating asymmetrical structures that favor flank maneuvers, as seen in King's Indian variations where White's e4 pawn faces pressure from ...c5 and ...e5 advances. White's typical plans emphasize harmonious development to solidify , deploying knights to c3 and f3 for support while considering a with g3 to mirror Black's setup and maintain flexibility. However, overextension in poses risks, as aggressive pawn advances like e4 can become vulnerable to Black's timely breaks, potentially leading to weakened squares and isolated pawns that Black exploits for counterplay. Black achieves dynamic equality through precise timing of central breaks, such as ...d5 to challenge pawn chain or ...e5 to fracture , often prepared by piece maneuvers to ensure activity post-exchange. In the , a related Indian system, queenside expansion via ...b5 sacrifices a pawn for open files and pressure on b2 and a2 pawns. Kingside attacks dominate in the King's Indian, with pawn storms involving ...f5 and ...g5 targeting White's castled position once stabilizes.

History

Origins and Early Development

The Indian Defences, a family of chess openings beginning with 1.d4 Nf6, originated in the early as part of the hypermodern school, which emphasized controlling the center with pieces rather than immediate pawn occupation. This approach contrasted with classical theory and gained traction among European masters seeking dynamic responses to White's queen's pawn opening. The term "Indian Defence" was popularized by in the early 1920s, reflecting resemblances to fianchetto-based strategies employed by 19th-century Indian players such as Moheschunder Bannerjee, who utilized bishop fianchettoes and flexible center play in games against British opponents in Calcutta during the 1850s. Bannerjee's setups, including early knight development to f6 and g6 fianchettoes, prefigured hypermodern ideas, though they were not systematically analyzed until decades later. Aron Nimzowitsch, a leading hypermodern theorist, significantly advanced the Indian systems through his practical play and writings. He introduced the Nimzo-Indian Defence (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4) to master-level chess, with his earliest recorded win in this line occurring against Alfred Brinckmann in the 1922-23 match in Kolding, Denmark. Nimzowitsch's influential book My System, published in 1925, elaborated on core hypermodern principles like overprotection, restraint of White's center, and fianchetto development, which underpinned the Indian Defences' strategic foundation. Tartakower, another hypermodern advocate, actively promoted these openings in tournaments and analyses, employing them to challenge classical pawn structures and emphasizing aggressive piece activity. Initial variations drew from proto-Indian ideas explored in the 1910s, such as early ...Nf6 responses combined with ...e6 or ...g6 setups seen in games by players like Richard Réti. A pivotal development came in 1922 when Ernst Grünfeld unveiled his namesake defence (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5) against Réti in Vienna, introducing a pawn break that dynamically contested White's center while supporting a kingside fianchetto. This novelty marked a shift toward more concrete counterplay in Indian lines, distinguishing it from earlier, more restrained forms like the proto-Nimzo-Indian experiments of the prior decade. Pre-World War II adoption in was rapid, with the Indian Defences featuring prominently in major tournaments by the late and . Austrian master Rudolf Spielmann contributed to their aggressive evolution, pioneering lines like the Spielmann Variation in the Nimzo-Indian (4.Qb3) at Carlsbad 1929, which pressured Black's queenside and highlighted tactical opportunities in hypermodern structures. These early innovations established the Indian Defences as viable alternatives to symmetrical responses like 1...d5, influencing a generation of players before the war disrupted further theoretical progress.

Modern Evolution and Key Contributors

Following , the Indian Defences experienced significant growth, particularly through the advocacy of Soviet grandmasters and Isaac Boleslavsky, who popularized the in the late 1940s and 1950s. In the 1946 Prague-Moscow match, Bronstein employed the King's Indian to challenge classical structures, demonstrating its potential for dynamic counterplay against White's central control. Boleslavsky further refined the Classical Variation, emphasizing Black's kingside and pawn storm as a viable response to 1.d4, which shifted perceptions from passive defence to aggressive expansion. This post-war emphasis by Soviet players elevated the opening's status in international play, influencing subsequent theoretical developments. Key contributors in later decades included , whose dominance in the King's Indian during the 1980s and 1990s showcased its sharpness at the elite level, as seen in victories at Linares 1990 and 1989. has been a prominent advocate of the , employing it effectively in matches and ranking among top practitioners for its flexible control of e4. Modern chess engines, notably in 2017, validated the viability of dynamic lines within Indian systems, such as aggressive pawn sacrifices in the Queen's Indian, by achieving superior evaluations through that highlighted imbalances over static equality. These contributions underscored the openings' adaptability, blending hypermodern ideas with concrete attacking motifs. The evolution of Indian Defences has trended from inherently risky gambit-style commitments toward more solid, positional setups, allowing Black greater flexibility without immediate concessions. In the , hybrid lines merging Indian fianchetto themes with Slav Defence elements, such as the Slav-Indian (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c6 5.g3), have gained traction for their balanced pawn structures and counterattacking potential. Notable matches featuring these openings include the 1980s Kasparov-Karpov World Championships, where Queen's Indian and Nimzo-Indian lines appeared in games 11 and 19 of the 1985 match, testing both players' strategic depth. More recently, elite usage persists, as in the 2023 where deployed the Nimzo-Indian against in games 8 and 14, illustrating its enduring relevance in top-level contests. Additionally, the has seen a revival in online play from 2020 to 2025, bolstered by Stockfish updates that affirm its long-term pressure, yielding high win rates in rapid formats.

Variations After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4

Lines with 2...e6

Black's response of 2...e6 to 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 forms the foundation for several interconnected hypermodern defenses, allowing flexible development while preparing central challenges. This move supports the knight on f6 and readies ...d5 or queenside expansion, often transposing into the Nimzo-Indian, Queen's Indian, or Bogo-Indian based on White's third move. The Nimzo-Indian arises primarily after 3.Nc3 Bb4, where Black pins the knight on c3 to exert pressure on White's developing center. This pin disrupts White's control over e4 and invites exchanges that can favor Black's structure. A key continuation is the Rubinstein Variation with 4.e3, where White supports d4 and prepares to challenge the pin, often leading to 4...0-0 5.Bd3 d5. Here, Black's ...d5 frequently exchanges the c4-pawn for White's light-squared bishop, granting Black the bishop pair and dynamic counterplay against White's isolated d-pawn. The Nimzo's strategic depth lies in its balance of solidity and aggression, with Black aiming for queenside activity via ...c5 or ...b6 while restricting White's e4 advance. If White opts for 3.Nf3 instead of 3.Nc3, Black can steer toward the with 3...b6, developing the queenside before committing the . The standard line features 4.g3 Ba6, where the targets the c4-pawn, pressuring White's center and forcing concessions like b3 to protect it. In the Petrosian Variation, White responds with 5.b3, solidifying the and fianchettoing the king's on g2, leading to positions where Black counters with ...d5 or ...Bb7 for central influence. This setup emphasizes Black's control over e4 and long-term queenside play, often resulting in balanced middlegames with mutual chances. The Bogo-Indian emerges as a solid alternative when White plays 3.Nf3 Bb4+, checking the king and pinning the knight indirectly; the main line is 4.Bd2, where White defends the c1-bishop and prepares development. Black often retreats with 4...Be7 or exchanges via 4...Bxd2+ 5.Qxd2, leading to simplified positions with ...d5 or ...c5 breaks. Considered less dynamic than the Nimzo or Queen's Indian, it suits players seeking reliability over sharp tactics, as Black achieves a comfortable setup without overextending. Other branches include the Blumenfeld Gambit after 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 b5, where Black sacrifices a pawn for rapid development and queenside , challenging White's advanced with ...d6 and ...Nbd7. Acceptance via 5.dxe6 leads to open lines favoring Black's activity, though White can decline for a spatial edge. Similarly, 4.g3 transposes toward Catalan structures with closed s, where White's exerts long-term pressure on d5, but Black equalizes via ...d5 or ...Bb7. In theory, anti-Nimzo lines like 3.g3 have gained traction, often leading to setups where modern engines evaluate positions as roughly equal (around +0.2 to +0.4 for White in key variations), emphasizing White's solid over Black's piece activity. Black responds flexibly with ...d5 or ...b6, but engine analysis highlights White's edge in closed positions if Black overpresses.

Lines with 2...g6

In the Indian Defence, Black's 2...g6 responds to 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 by preparing a kingside , typically leading to dynamic, hypermodern structures where Black concedes the center to White while planning counterattacks. This move order allows flexibility, branching into the with an immediate central challenge or the with a slower buildup. Shared motifs include the on exerting long-range pressure on the d4-pawn, White's spatial advantage in the center, and Black's potential for pawn breaks like ...c5 or ...e5 to undermine that control. The arises via 3.Nc3 d5, where strikes at center early, inviting exchanges and aiming for active piece play. In the main line Exchange Variation (4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3), secures a strong pawn duo on c3 and e4, but counters with ...Bg7, ...c5 to target d4 and ...Nc6 for development, often leading to sharp middlegames where bishops dominate open diagonals. The Russian System (4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bf4) sees develop harmoniously while pinning the knight on f6, but equalizes through ...O-O, ...c5 breaks, and queenside expansion with ...b5, maintaining dynamic equality in high-level play. Recent engine analyses post-2022 highlight the Grünfeld's solidity, with setups like the Exchange lines showing robust counterplay for against central control. Without 3...d5, the position transposes toward the after 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6, where Black supports the and prepares ...e5 to contest the center indirectly. The Classical Variation continues with 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 e5, solidifying Black's pawn structure while eyeing kingside aggression; White often castles and advances with d5, creating closed-center tension. A key aggressive line, the Attack (7.O-O Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.Ne1 Nd7 10.Be3 f5), launches Black's pawn storm with ...f5 to open the kingside, though White counters via queenside expansion with b4 and c5. Engine evaluations from 2023 onward have exposed vulnerabilities in some hyper-aggressive King's Indian lines, such as overextended ...f5 pushes without adequate preparation, prompting a shift toward more restrained setups that prioritize central breaks over immediate attacks.

Lines with 2...c5 and Other Early Queen Pawn Advances

In the Benoni Defence, Black responds to 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 with 2...c5, directly challenging White's centre and aiming for asymmetrical pawn structures that favour dynamic counterplay. This move order leads to sharp positions where White typically advances with 3.d5, creating a pawn chain that Black seeks to undermine, often resulting in White holding a space advantage while Black pursues piece activity on the queenside and kingside. Database statistics show that after 3.d5, White scores 40.4% wins, Black 32.0%, and draws 27.6% across over 46,000 games, indicating a balanced but combative opening played as recently as 2025. The classical main line continues 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6, where Black supports the knight on f6 and prepares ...g6 or ...Nbd7 to activate the pieces, often leading to imbalances such as an isolated d5-pawn for White in exchange for Black's potential breaks with ...b5 or ...f5. These positions emphasize conceptual tensions: White's control of the centre restricts Black's development initially, but Black's pawn majority on the queenside enables long-term pressure if White overextends. A key variation is the , reached via 3.d5 g6 (instead of ...e6), allowing to fianchetto the kingside bishop on g7 for rapid development and control of the long diagonal. Typical continuation: 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.e4 d6 6.Nf3 0-0, where tolerates broad pawn centre (e4-d5) to launch counterattacks, blending hypermodern ideas with Benoni aggression. In this setup, fianchetto enhances kingside harmony, compensating for the pawn tension, though knight on c3 often pressures e4 support. The arises after 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6, where Black sacrifices the b5-pawn for open lines, particularly the b-file for a rook, and queenside initiative via ...Ba6 or ...Qb6. This , popularized by in the mid-20th century, prioritizes long-term compensation through piece activity over material equality, with Black often regaining the pawn later via tactical motifs. When accepted (5.bxa6 Bxa6), Black's development is swift, targeting weaknesses around White's king; statistics from accepted lines show White winning 47%, Black 25%, and draws 28%. In declined Benko lines, such as 4.Nd2 (avoiding immediate pawn capture to maintain central harmony and sidestep gambit complications), Black must adapt with ...g6 or ...e6 to avoid passivity, though this line is considered solid for White without refuting Black's ideas outright. Recent database analysis indicates the Benko's resurgence in rapid formats from 2023-2025, with increased adoption at intermediate levels (e.g., 2000 Elo) due to its practical chances in time scrambles, evidenced by higher Black win rates around 28% in declined variations compared to classical defences. Other early queen's pawn advances include pseudo-Benoni transpositions, such as 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.d5 (delaying c4), where Black can steer into Benoni structures with ...e6 or ...g6, blending fluidity with motifs. Early ...d6 setups after 2...c5 further merge with Old Indian elements, as in 3.d5 d6 followed by ...e5 or ...g6, creating solid pawn barriers that echo the Old Indian's restrained counterplay while retaining Benoni sharpness. These hybrids emphasize Black's flexibility, allowing transpositions to avoid White's prepared lines while maintaining pawn imbalances for active piece play.

Variations After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3

Main Responses with 2...c5 or 2...g6

In the Indian Defence after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3, Black's main responses of 2...c5 and 2...g6 lead to dynamic, transposition-prone positions that emphasize flexibility over immediate central confrontation. The 2...c5 move initiates the Spielmann-Indian, a rare but sharp line named after Austrian grandmaster Rudolf Spielmann, where Black challenges White's d4-pawn early to provoke imbalances. Following 2...c5, White typically advances with 3.d5, creating a Benoni-like structure with advanced pawn tension on the queenside and kingside potential for counterplay. Black can respond aggressively with 3...b5, aiming for a Benko Gambit-style queenside expansion, or more solidly with 3...e6 to support a central and prepare ...d5 later. These options make the Spielmann-Indian appealing for Black players seeking unbalanced, tactical battles, though its rarity stems from White's ability to maintain central superiority if Black overextends. The 2...g6 response defines the East Indian Defence (ECO A48), where Black fianchettos the kingside after 3.c4 Bg7, often transposing into familiar King's Indian or Grünfeld structures depending on White's development. This line offers Black solid pawn control and long-term kingside attacking chances, with White's c4 committing to space but allowing Black counterplay via ...d6 and ...e5. A key aggressive sideline for White arises via 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4, known as the Barry Attack, which deploys the bishop to target e5 and prepare a rapid kingside assault with Qd2, Bh6, and h4-h5. In contrast to the 2.c4 move order, where White immediately seizes queenside space, the 2.Nf3 sequence grants Black greater transpositional freedom, as White delays c4 and concedes early central dominance, enabling Black to steer toward favorable Indian setups like the East Indian without immediate pawn clashes. Solid alternatives for White include 3.g3, mirroring Black's fianchetto for a balanced Catalan-like game, or 3.Bg5 pinning the knight to disrupt Black's harmony. The Barry Attack has surged in popularity during the 2020s, particularly in online blitz and rapid formats, due to its direct attacking motifs against fianchetto systems, with top grandmasters like and employing it successfully in high-stakes events. has featured the Barry Attack in online exhibitions, such as a 2020 rapid game where he used it to dismantle a King's Indian setup, highlighting its potency for quick wins against unprepared opponents. Books like Andrew Martin's Play the Barry Attack (2023) and Vladimir Okhotnik's The Modernized Barry Attack (2023) have further boosted its adoption among club and professional players seeking aggressive White options. As of 2025, the line continues to see use in major online events and rapid tournaments.

Other Second-Move Options

In the Indian Defence after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3, Black's 2...c5 invites a Pseudo-Benko variation upon 3.d5 b5, where Black gambits the b-pawn to secure queenside counterplay and open the b-file, mirroring the Benko Gambit's aggressive structure but granting White a developmental edge due to the early on f3. This line, also known as the Spielmann-Indian Pseudo-Benko, emphasizes Black's initiative through rapid piece activity and pressure against White's center, though White typically retains a slight advantage by capturing on b5 and consolidating. Database statistics show over 3,000 recorded games (3,459 as of 2025), with Black achieving results in lines like 4.c4 (25% wins for Black) and 4.a4 (22% wins), as top players such as (574 games) and Etienne Bacrot (112 games) have employed it successfully. Other non-standard second moves include 2...d6 and 2...e6, which frequently transpose into familiar Indian systems depending on White's reply. Following 2...e6, White's common 3.c4 allows Black to enter the Queen's Indian Defence via 3...b6, fianchettoing the queenside bishop while maintaining flexibility against variations like the Nimzo-Indian (if White plays Nc3 earlier). Similarly, 2...d6 supports potential King's Indian transpositions after 3.c4 g6, enabling Black to develop harmoniously without premature pawn commitments in the center. The rare 2...b6 setup aims for an immediate queenside fianchetto, often leading to Queen's Indian-like positions after White's c4, though it risks overextension if White delays central expansion. Strategically, these options prioritize avoidance of early structural commitments, permitting to adapt to setup and potentially create reversed Indian formations where pieces target weaknesses on the kingside or center. While uncommon at elite levels—comprising less than 5% of responses in major databases—they retain utility for surprise value in club play, as evidenced by 2025 encounters like Schitco vs. Adhiban, where such lines disrupted prepared repertoires and yielded dynamic middlegames.

Old Indian Defence

The Old Indian Defense arises as a restrained and solid response within the Indian Defense family, characterized by Black's early pawn advances to d6 and e5, which challenge White's center without committing to the more dynamic of the King's Indian Defense. Unlike more aggressive modern Indian setups that prioritize kingside expansion, the Old Indian emphasizes positional control and flexibility, often leading to closed or semi-closed structures where Black develops harmoniously before launching counterplay. This approach suits players seeking fewer theoretical complications while maintaining a sturdy pawn formation. The standard move order is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 e5, with Black's fianchetto of the kingside (via ...g6 and ...Bg7) being optional and less common than in related lines. Black typically follows with restrained development, placing the knight on d7 (...Nbd7) to support the e5-pawn and the on e7 (...Be7) to safeguard the d6-pawn and connect the rooks. White's central advance to e4 is directly contested by ...exd4, recapturing with the to open lines and equalize material while restricting White's options. Key variations include the main line, 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.e4 Be7, where Black castles kingside and prepares queenside counterplay with ...c6 or ...b6, aiming for a balanced middlegame focused on piece activity rather than pawn storms. A Saemisch-like setup for White occurs with 4.f3, reinforcing the d4-pawn against ...exd4 but allowing Black to develop freely with ...Nbd7 and ...Be7, often transposing to favorable closed positions. Another option, 4.e4 exd4 5.Nxd4, leads to rapid development for Black via ...Nc6 or ...Nbd7, challenging White's overextended center. The Old Indian offers advantages in its solidity, featuring fewer sharp, theory-heavy lines compared to the King's Indian, making it ideal for positional players who prefer gradual maneuvering over immediate aggression. Database statistics indicate a draw rate of around 26% and Black win rate of 34%, underscoring its viability as a reliable choice without excessive risk.

Budapest Gambit and Similar

The arises after the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5, where Black immediately challenges White's center by offering the e-pawn. White typically accepts with 3.dxe5, after which Black plays 3...Ng4, targeting the pawn and seeking rapid development at the cost of material. This aims to provoke weaknesses in White's while gaining piece activity, often regaining the sacrificed pawn through maneuvers like ...Nc6 followed by ...d6 to attack e5, or ...Qe7 in lines where White defends with 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.e3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7, pressuring the pawn while developing the kingside. The opening's dynamic nature mimics the hypermodern provocation seen in Indian Defences but emphasizes immediate tension over setups. A sharper alternative is the Fajarowicz Variation, where Black responds to 3.dxe5 with 3...Ne4 instead of 3...Ng4, aiming for central disruption and quick traps, such as after 4.Nd2 Qh4 pinning the or 4.a3 d5 targeting the e5-pawn directly. This line sacrifices the pawn for activity and potential counterplay against White's , though it demands precise tactics to avoid falling behind in development. Black's ideas revolve around exploiting the centralized on e4 to regain material or force concessions, but White can neutralize it with careful play like 4.Bd2 or 4.Qd5. White's primary refusals of full compensation include 4.e4 in the Alekhine Variation, building a strong pawn and offering the pawn back to accelerate development, leading to positions where Black recaptures with 4...Nxe5 but faces spatial disadvantages; 4.Bf4 in the Rubinstein Variation, defending the extra pawn while preparing e3 and Nbd2 for solidity; and 4.Nf3 in the Adler Variation, developing the to protect e5 and contest d4, often allowing Black counterplay with 4...Bc5 but retaining a structural edge. These responses highlight the gambit's reliance on Black's tactical accuracy to equalize. Similar lines include transpositional motifs akin to the Alekhine Defence, where provokes central advances like e4 or e5 for counterattacking chances, though direct transpositions are rare; additionally, hybrid setups blending 2...c5 with an early ...e5 echo the gambit's but occur infrequently outside main theory. The remains risky for , with White holding a long-term advantage in most lines due to the bishop pair and space, leading to its decline in elite play after as engines exposed theoretical weaknesses. However, it proves viable at lower levels for its tricky nature. Database statistics show Black scoring around 29% wins overall, with higher success in rapid formats below 2200 Elo.

References

  1. https://www.chess.com/openings/Indian-Game
  2. https://www.365chess.com/chess-openings/Indian-Defence
  3. https://www.chess.com/openings/Kings-Indian-Defense
  4. https://www.chess.com/terms/hypermodern-chess
  5. https://thechessworld.com/articles/openings/5-reasons-to-play-kings-indian-defense-in-must-win-situations/
  6. https://www.365chess.com/eco.php
  7. https://www.chessable.com/blog/kings-indian-defense/
  8. https://chesspathways.com/chess-openings/queens-pawn-opening/nimzo-indian-defense/
  9. https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-kings-indian-exchange-structure
  10. https://thechessworld.com/articles/openings/queens-indian-defense-complete-guide/
  11. https://thechessworld.com/articles/middle-game/7-advanced-pawn-structures-in-chess-you-must-know/
  12. https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-indian-roots-of-modern-chess
  13. https://en.chessbase.com/post/why-indian
  14. https://www.chess.com/article/view/forgotten-history-of-indian-chess
  15. https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/indianopenings.html
  16. https://www.chess.com/openings/Nimzo-Indian-Defense
  17. https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/hypermodern.html
  18. https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/8478.pdf
  19. https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-openings-nimzo-indian-defense
  20. https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-winning-academy-31-nimzo-is-a-killer-weapon
  21. https://www.chess.com/article/view/openings-for-tactical-players-nimzo-indian-defense
  22. https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-openings-queens-indian-defense
  23. https://www.mychessjourney.com/post/queen-s-indian-defense
  24. https://www.365chess.com/chess-openings/Bogo-Indian-Defense
  25. https://thechessworld.com/articles/openings/bogo-indian-defense-quick-start-opening-guide/
  26. https://www.chess.com/openings/Blumenfeld-Countergambit
  27. https://shop.chessbase.com/en/products/martin_the_blumenfeld_gambit_a_sharp_weapon_in_the_benoni
  28. https://www.chess.com/openings/Catalan-Opening
  29. https://www.modern-chess.com/course/expert-repertoire-against-the-nimzo-indian-defense-part-1/20337/
  30. https://thechessworld.com/articles/openings/playing-against-the-nimzo-indian-defense/
  31. https://www.chess.com/openings/Grunfeld-Defense
  32. https://www.365chess.com/chess-openings/Grunfeld-Defense
  33. https://www.chessable.com/blog/grunfeld-defense/
  34. https://www.modern-chess.com/course/grunfeld-for-black-part-1/89445/
  35. https://chesspathways.com/chess-openings/queens-pawn-opening/kings-indian-defense/
  36. https://www.modern-chess.com/chess-openings/kings-indian-defence/
  37. https://www.chessable.com/blog/what-to-do-against-the-kings-indian-defence/
  38. https://www.365chess.com/chess-openings/Benoni-Defense
  39. https://chesspathways.com/chess-openings/queens-pawn-opening/benoni-defense/
  40. https://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=5&n=69&ms=d4.Nf6.c4.c5&ns=7.14.11.69
  41. https://www.chessable.com/blog/benoni-defense/
  42. https://thechessworld.com/articles/openings/the-benoni-defense-complete-guide/
  43. https://www.chess.com/openings/Benoni-Defense-Modern-Fianchetto-Variation
  44. https://www.chess.com/openings/Benko-Gambit
  45. https://thechessworld.com/articles/openings/benko-gambit-complete-guide-for-black/
  46. https://www.modern-chess.com/chess-openings/benko-gambit/
  47. https://www.chesspublishing.com/content/12/may12.htm
  48. https://www.chess.com/openings/Indian-Game-Spielmann-Indian-Variation
  49. https://www.bookmoves.net/openings/indian-defense-spielmann-indian-a46
  50. https://www.chess.com/openings/Indian-Game-Knights-Variation-East-Indian-Defense
  51. https://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=5&n=48&ms=d4.Nf6.Nf3.g6&ns=7.14.20.48
  52. https://www.newinchess.com/play-the-barry-attack
  53. https://thinkerspublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/BARRY-ATTACK.pdf
  54. https://www.chess.com/openings/Indian-Game-Spielmann-Indian-Pseudo-Benko-Variation
  55. https://lichess.org/study/9JuVuMvG/EPG2LXBO
  56. https://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=7&n=2394&ms=d4.Nf6.Nf3.c5.d5.b5&ns=7.14.20.49.414.2394
  57. https://www.modern-chess.com/chess-openings/nimzo-indian-defence/
  58. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chess_Opening_Theory/1._d4/1...Nf6/2._Nf3
  59. https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/hdlkr0/1_d4_players_what_do_you_play_against_early_1nf6/
  60. https://www.chess.com/openings/Old-Indian-Defense
  61. https://www.chesspublishing.com/content/11/jun00.htm
  62. https://www.365chess.com/eco/A53-A55_Old_Indian_defence
  63. https://chesstempo.com/game-database/opening/old-indian-defense-general/1468
  64. https://www.chess.com/openings/Budapest-Gambit
  65. https://www.365chess.com/chess-openings/Budapest-Gambit
  66. https://www.chess.com/openings/Budapest-Gambit-Fajarowicz-Variation
  67. https://www.365chess.com/eco/A51_Budapest_Fajarowicz_variation
  68. https://thechessworld.com/articles/openings/budapest-gambit-quick-start-opening-guide/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.