Eric Rosen is so genuinely nice. He has greater knowledge and sight for the chess board but is very patient of his audience. Upon being told he missed mate in one he basically says that the rook would take but that is easy to be overlooked. Gotta love Eric Rosen. Glad to see a lot of people think the same.
I don't think anybody ever really studies variations in the Nimzowitsch Defense. Players who play 1.e4 usually think, "This defense is rarely played - so it's not worth my time. When I encounter it, I deal with it at *that* time and just make good moves. It'll probably transpose into something familiar, anyway." Players who plan on playing the Nimzowitsch Defense will have their work cut out for them trying to figure out all the different possibilities that they may face since, as I've said, most players playing the white pieces just riff against this defense. Is there really such a thing as "the main line" in the Nimzowitsch Defense? I think I can count on one hand how many times I've seen 1...Nc6 in response to 1.e4.
as black I use a similar opening, based on Nunn's comments in one of his books, about winning as black in tournaments with only 5 or 6 rounds. The tabiya is 1 d4 g6 2 c4 Bg7 3 Nc3 d6 4 e4 Nc6 5 Nf3 Bg4 6 Be3 a6 (waiting move and avoids a later Nb5) 7 Be2 e5 8 d5 Bxf3 9 Bxf3 Nd4 10 Bxd4 exd4 11 Ne2 c5 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 Nxd4 Qa5+ followed by Qc5 regains the pawn
I play it with both white and black. I bring out both knights on the third row and pawn to e4 or d4. I feel that I throw off a lot of players in the 600 ratings
NOO ERIC. YOU MISSED YOUR CHANCE for the classic pun but it would've fit perfectly ... "g3 defends with the rook, sometimes that can be overlooked" ... overrooked ಠ_ಠ
