Playing against Queen's Indian without early d5 or c5

[Fromper]

So I've played white against our local club champion (rated 1992 USCF) twice now since switching from 1. e4 to 1. d4, and he's played the Queen's Indian against me the same way both times. This is typical of him - he learned a couple of openings years ago and hasn't switched since, so I know I can count on him to keep playing the same way over and over until I prove that there's something wrong with that particular line. The up side is that it's easy for me to study and prepare for him. The down side is that he knows his particular variations as well as most grandmasters, without needing to bother with book opening study.

He plays the thematic QID moves early, and doesn't even bother going for counter play in the center until he runs out of those moves. ie no early c5 or d5. Both of our recent games began 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 b6 4. Bd3 Bb7 5. O-O Be7. I lost the first time, and I definitely improved my play the second time compared to the first, but I still felt like I didn't have a plan in the middle game. I got a draw the second time, which isn't bad against a guy rated almost 300 points above me, but I'd like to come up with some better ideas for how to play for a win next time.

Here's the full game from yesterday, with my annotation:


[Site "Florida, USA"]
[Date "2009.12.26"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Fromper"]
[Black "Club Champion"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "1697"]
[BlackElo "1992"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 b6 4. Bd3 Bb7 5. O-O Be7
{ At this point, I gave up waiting for him to play d5, so I could try to transpose to normal Colle lines. }
6. c4 O-O 7. b3
{ This seemed like the best way to develop my queen's bishop. }
d5 8. Nbd2 Nbd7 9. Bb2 Re8 10. Ne5
{ I later thought that maybe Rac1 first would have been better. This whole sequence ended up being moderately predictable and pointless. }
Nxe5 11. dxe5 Nd7 12. f4 dxc4 13. Nxc4
{ I didn't like this spot for my knight, but I wanted to keep my bishop where it was, and I didn't want to create an isolated pawn by taking with the b pawn. }
g6 14. Ba3
{ When in doubt, trade off your bad bishop. This also helps me reposition my knight. }
Bxa3 15. Nxa3 Qe7 16. Nb5 Nc5 17. Be2
{ I was looking for an excuse to challenge his bishop on the long diagonal, so this actually helps me. }
a6 18. Nd4 Rad8 19. Bf3
{ I already traded off my bad bishop. Time to trade off his good one. }
Bxf3 20. Qxf3
{ Unpinning the knight. }
Rd5 21. Rac1 Qd7 22. Rc3 a5 23. Rfc1 Ra8 24. a3 Na6
{ This whole sequence was designed to attack the c7 pawn, but it was predictable and easily prevented. I just didn't have any better ideas. }
25. Qe2
{ Aiming for Nb5, but Rc6 would have been better. Even that wouldn't have worked, though, as Nb8 easily chases the rook away. }
c5 26. Nf3 Qb7 27. Nd2 Nc7 28. Ne4 Ne8
{ Again, my maneuvering leads to nothing. }
29. Rd3 Rad8 30. Rxd5 Qxd5 31. Qc2 h5 32. Nc3 Qd3 33. Qxd3 Rxd3 34. Kf2 Kf8 35. Ke2 Rd7 36. Na4
{ By this point, I was running low on time, and my play got a little silly. I should have seen that this wouldn't lead to anything. }
Rb7 37. Rd1 Ke7 38. Rd3 f5 39. Kd2
{ I was looking to maneuver my king up to attack his queen side pawns, but I didn't realize until two moves later that if I put my king on c4, then b5 wins my knight. So this was a waste of a couple of moves. I should have taken the f pawn en pessant and sent my king over to that side of the board. }
Nc7 40. Kc3 Nd5+ 41. Kd2 Kd7 42. Nc3 Kc6 43. a4
{ Don't even ask what I was thinking there. I honestly don't know. I was down to less than 5 minutes (in a 90 minute game), and my moves were getting silly. }
Rd7 44. e4
{ Blunder. It's amazing I still managed to draw this game. }
Nxf4 45. Rxd7 Kxd7
{ At this point, I was no longer writing down moves, so the rest is from memory, and might not be 100% accurate. }
46. g3 Nh3 47. Ke3
Ng5 48. exf5 gxf5 49. Kf4 Nf7 50. Nd1 Kc6 51. Ne3
{ I was proud of coming up with this knight maneuver to blockade his pawns so quickly. Given how much I suck at blitz, this was a good play. }
b5 52. h3
{ Not taking the bait. }
c4 53. axb5+ Kc5
{ I have no idea why he didn't take that pawn, but it worked for me, because it allowed my next two moves. }
54. b6 Kxb6 55. Nxc4+ Kb5
{ In post game analysis, there was a win for white around here somewhere based on Nd6+, but I think I have the move order wrong of the moves I'm doing from memory, because now it doesn't work. }
56. g4 fxg4 57. hxg4 hxg4 58. Kxg4 Nxe5+ 59. Nxe5 Kc5
60. Nc4 Kb5 61. Nxa5 Kxa5 62. Kf4 Kb4 63. Ke5 1/2-1/2
{ As I said, I don't remember all the moves off the top of my head - those last 20 moves for both sides are from memory, as I didn't have time to write them down during the game. So there was a reason black thought he might trick me into a win with Nxe5 when he played it, but I didn't fall for it. Now I just can't remember the exact move order that led to it, or why Nd6+ for me would have won (I think the king side pawns on the f, g, and h file were already traded at that point). }

[Rudel]

Fromper, when you have a chance, check out section 3 of chapter 8. It gives two lines for this. One is simply 5.Nbd2, threatening e4.

I realize that does not give you an obvious plan, but sometimes you have to wait for your opponent to commit more than he has before that is even a realistic goal.

[Fromper]

(12-29-2009 12:23 AM)Rudel Wrote:  Fromper, when you have a chance, check out section 3 of chapter 8. It gives two lines for this. One is simply 5.Nbd2, threatening e4.

I realize that does not give you an obvious plan, but sometimes you have to wait for your opponent to commit more than he has before that is even a realistic goal.

That's pretty much what I played against this guy in the previous game. I think I waited until the 6th move (the first five moves were the same as this game) before I played Nbd2, though, and then I was able to push e4 next move. Somehow, I just ended up with an awful position in that one, which is why I decided to try a different approach this time.

--Fromper

[Rudel]

I don't suppose you have that game around to look at?

[Fromper]

Not electronically. I'll have to manually copy my scoresheet into the computer when I get home, like I did with this one. This was the better game for me, though, which is why I was figuring I'd probably stick to playing the QID this way, just trying to find minor improvements.

--Fromper

[Rudel]

Okay, in that case you might want to look at section 3.1 of that chapter. The conventional wisdom is that the line where White plays Nc3, Qe2, and Rac1 is pretty decent for him.

[Rudel]

(12-29-2009 03:58 AM)Fromper Wrote:  Not electronically. I'll have to manually copy my scoresheet into the computer when I get home, like I did with this one. This was the better game for me, though, which is why I was figuring I'd probably stick to playing the QID this way, just trying to find minor improvements.

--Fromper

I've put this game up on our viewer here. I'll try to comment on it later, but hopefully some other people will beat me to it.

[Fromper]

I posted this same game and question over on chessforums.org, and someone came up with an interesting suggestion:

Quote:Here's a thought. If you decide to go c4 then Nc3 before b3 (or omitting b3 altogether), put it on a chess board and turn the board around. What do you have? A small Zuke (Be7) reversed! Perhaps you can get an idea by looking at that position as Black and seeing the pros and cons there.

I thought this was a great observation, which I actually feel a little stupid for missing.

If I'd played 7. Nc3 instead of b3, and my opponent still responded with d5, which seems likely, then after 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 b6 4. Bd3 Bb7 5. O-O Be7 6. c4 O-O 7. Nc3 d5, we've reached chapter 4 of Zuke Em with colors reversed, but with two major differences. First, his bishop is on the wrong square for the Zuke (e7 instead of d6). And second, white's up a tempo compared to black in similar Zuke lines, because black is playing a white opening.

So I'll be scouring chapter 4 of Zuke Em for ideas. Knowing this guy, he'll play the same line against me next time, so I'll actually get to use whatever I come up with. I suspect that he won't change his general play unless I beat him once or twice.

--Fromper

[Rudel]

Excellent observation!
I'll let this cook in my head for a while and see if it suggests a line of play.
Without the Bishop on d6, the ...Nb4 [Nb5 for White] options won't have the same bite, but maybe something else. You might want to look into transpositions into the "Early Fianchetto" line in chapter 11.

[Fromper]

Yeah, it's obvious that the Nb4 stuff is out, but the first thing I thought of was black's Ne4 move against the main line Zuke. Nothing that would prevent black from playing that in the normal Zuke applies here. If I were to just play 8. Ne5 immediately, black doesn't have a single piece covering the e5 square to capture it right away. Thus, assuming he brings out his queen's knight to attack it next (probably Nbd7, but perhaps Nc6), I can play 9. f4, allowing me to recapture with the f pawn if he trades, and I get a semi-open f file and a nice pawn center. If he doesn't trade, I think I'm still doing well, though I'm not sure what to do with my c1 bishop.