user17: In this game, White appears to have lost the initiative against the Nimzo Indian defense as early as the fourth move, and certainly by the eighth move.
If White's next four moves were 1) e3, 2) Nf3, 3) Bishop moves and 4) O-O, White would get a solid defensive position that is characteristic of Black's play. Under the circumstances, does it make sense for White to "play Black" in this way if he wants to minimize his chances of losing?
(In the actual game, White adopted a more aggressive policy and succumbed to Black's superior development.)
One other feature of note. White was rated about 50 points weaker than Black, even though they were both Masters (2400 vs. 2450). Would it make sense for White to "play Black" if he were 50 points weaker, and play more aggressively if he were 50 points stronger?

user20776: Makes no sense as stated.
Either you have the initiative and use it to improve your position or you do not have the initiative and you are responding to the other players moves rather than forcing them to respond like would happen if you did have the initiative.  
White starts with the initiative but it can swing back and forth depending how well each side plays; and except for the first early moves it has nothing to do with white/black it has only to do with having/not_having the initiative. 

user657: You may have answered your own question with the phrase White "succumbed to Black's superior development."
First, one should never be concerned about "playing as white" or "playing as black." One should play according to the needs of the position; if your opponent is better developed (whether white or black) you should seek to neutralize the affect of that by keeping the position closed, and exchanging their developed pieces.
In my earlier years, I was brought up short by the question being asked by the master helping me analyse my recent loss, "He sacrificed. Why are you attacking?" Up until that point I thought that was just the way chess was played; bring out my pieces and start throwing them at my opponent's king.
You should only be on the attack if there's a reason in the position. From your description, it seems like you recognize White lacked a reason to attack, so White should have reined in his aggression until such a reason arrived at the board.

user7297: This is actually quite common behaviour in the Nimzo-Indian defense. Black trades the bishop pair for either an advantageous pawn structure (e.g. in the Hübner variation) or a lead in development (like this game).
In the latter case, a successful strategy for White might be to neutralize Black's lead in development (which corresponds to your "play Black"), exchange some pieces and take advantage of his bishop pair in the late middlegame or the endgame. However, this style of play might not suit everybody.

17: <p>In this <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1586941" rel="nofollow">game</a>, White appears to have lost the initiative against the Nimzo Indian defense as early as the fourth move, and certainly by the eighth move.</p>

<p>If White's next four moves were 1) e3, 2) Nf3, 3) Bishop moves and 4) O-O, White would get a solid defensive position that is characteristic of Black's play. Under the circumstances, does it make sense for White to "play Black" in this way if he wants to minimize his chances of losing?</p>

<p>(In the actual game, White adopted a more aggressive policy and succumbed to Black's superior development.)</p>

<p>One other feature of note. White was rated about 50 points weaker than Black, even though they were both Masters (2400 vs. 2450). Would it make sense for White to "play Black" if he were 50 points weaker, and play more aggressively if he were 50 points stronger?</p>
 20776: <p>Makes no sense as stated.</p>

<p>Either you have the initiative and use it to improve your position or you do not have the initiative and you are responding to the other players moves rather than forcing them to respond like would happen if you did have the initiative.  </p>

<p>White starts with the initiative but it can swing back and forth depending how well each side plays; and except for the first early moves it has nothing to do with white/black it has only to do with having/not_having the initiative. </p>
 657: <p>You may have answered your own question with the phrase White "succumbed to Black's superior development."</p>

<p>First, one should never be concerned about "playing as white" or "playing as black." One should play according to the needs of the position; if your opponent is better developed (whether white or black) you should seek to neutralize the affect of that by keeping the position closed, and exchanging their developed pieces.</p>

<p>In my earlier years, I was brought up short by the question being asked by the master helping me analyse my recent loss, "<em>He</em> sacrificed. Why are <em>you</em> attacking?" Up until that point I thought that was just the way chess was played; bring out my pieces and start throwing them at my opponent's king.</p>

<p>You should only be on the attack if there's a reason in the position. From your description, it seems like you recognize White lacked a reason to attack, so White should have reined in his aggression until such a reason arrived at the board.</p>
 7297: <p>This is actually quite common behaviour in the Nimzo-Indian defense. Black trades the bishop pair for either an advantageous pawn structure (e.g. in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimzo-Indian_Defence#4...c5" rel="nofollow">Hübner variation</a>) or a lead in development (like this game).</p>

<p>In the latter case, a successful strategy for White might be to neutralize Black's lead in development (which corresponds to your "play Black"), exchange some pieces and take advantage of his bishop pair in the late middlegame or the endgame. However, this style of play might not suit everybody.</p>
