I went over both in my great predeccessors volume two i beleave. These games were my insiration! Bronstein makes it look so easy.

I of course noticed at once that it wasnt but i do the same thing in my games. White has nicelu placed pieces and i have engergy waiting to explode on both sides given the chance.

This is what dynamic chess truley is!

The sister game is Pachman-Bronstein, from the same event. Playing over the two games one after another is quite hilarious.

Pachman,L - Bronstein,D [E67]
Moskwa-Praha, Moskwa (2), 1946

1.d4 Pf6 2.c4 d6 3.Pc3 e5 4.Pf3 Pbd7 5.g3 g6 6.Lg2 Lg7 7.0-0 0-0 8.b3 Te8 9.e4 exd4 10.Pxd4 Pc5 11.Te1 a5 12.Lb2 a4 13.Tc1 c6 14.La1 axb3 15.axb3 Db6 16.h3 Pfd7 17.Tb1 Pf8 18.Kh2 h5 19.Te2 h4 20.Td2 Txa1 21.Txa1 Lxd4 22.Txd4 Pxb3 23.Txd6 Dxf2 24.Ta2 Dxg3+ 25.Kh1 Dxc3 26.Ta3 Lxh3 27.Txb3 Lxg2+ 28.Kxg2 Dxc4 29.Td4 De6 30.Txb7 Ta8 31.De2 h3+ 0-1

Here's the Zita-Bronstein game.  This is essential viewing not just for anyone who faces the King's Indian, but for anyone who wants to know what "dynamic" chess is all about.  (There's a "sister game" that was played in the same match.  I don't remember who was White, but I'm pretty sure Geller was Black.)



Zita,F - Bronstein,D [E68]
Moscow-Prague Moscow (6), 1946

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 Nbd7 5.g3 g6 6.Bg2 Bg7 7.0-0 0-0 8.b3 Re8 9.Bb2 c6 10.e4 exd4 11.Nxd4 Qb6 12.Qd2 Nc5 13.Rfe1 a5 14.Rab1 a4 15.Ba1 axb3 16.axb3 Ng4 17.h3 Rxa1 18.Rxa1 Nxf2 19.Re3 Nxh3+ 20.Kh2 Nf2 21.Rf3 Ncxe4 22.Qf4 Ng4+ 23.Kh1 f5 24.Nxe4 Rxe4 25.Qxd6 Rxd4 26.Qb8 Rd8 27.Ra8 Be5 28.Qa7 Qb4 29.Qa2 Qf8 30.Bh3 Qh6 0-1

I'll never go on record as saying the entire KID is refuted, but let's remember its history.  It was considered an inferior line until the Soviet Era really took off, and the Zita-Bronstein game suggested that a revolution in chess thinking was taking place.  In that game, White had a nice comfortable center, Black had a weak d6 pawn, and Black opened up play on the Queen-side.  The game looked to be about over except that Bronstein showed the queenside attack to be a mere prelude to a furious attack across the entire board culminating in White surrendering with his king about to get mated.

This was the epitome of dynamic chess; if White had survived until the endgame, he probably would have had good chances of scoring the full point.  But he never had the chance because his "naturally" placed pieces were in no position to deal with the concrete threats of the position.

In other words, the KID has always been on the threshhold of being positionally viable.  If the concrete variations start to turn to White's favor, then Black really is in trouble.  The KID probably needs another Knight like Bronstein to come to its rescue right now. 

The King's Indian is an opening that I love to play against because I feel like I'm upholding the side of Truth, Beauty, and Righteousness against a sea of chaos.  I know from firsthand experience that the KID is extremely fertile grounds for Black to play for a win and is a dangerous weapon.  I also know that below a certain level, the KID is just a sure way to ask to get suffocated, shot, drowned, and frozen out by White. 

So unless you're Rasputin or a very strong player with a great attacking imagination, perhaps you should stay away from the KID. But do me a favor; play it against me with lots of rating points on the line for both of us!  I could always use some help since I usually only get to play tournament chess in the Summer, and I don't get many chances to gain rating points!

Very interesting thought on the whole theory over load. I must admit i play both the Najdorf and Kings Indian and it is difficult to learn two dynamic systems which is why i still trot out hte french and the Owens on occasion. But i could save a lot of time and energy if i were to drop one of them.

Dont know if i will soon but if i had to i would keep my kings indian as it has prove it self constantly for me. The play is dynamic and i can start counter atacking very quickly. The Bayonet attack doesnt care me that much i have only played against it tiwce with score of 1.5 out of 2 not bad.

But if the Kings Indian is ever refuted then it will become a culy like the crazy BDG guys. Imagine our magazine Kings Indian World

Heh it would be neat

Maybe we should have one any way even if were not a chess cult.

But yeah if a refutation is ever shown i think we need to keep an eye out for those guys who throw out all the crap about a line being bad cause people tell me the owens is bad and these people are the people i beat with it. Others who i havent played say it is weak but so what. After they kill me as white ill believe them and it better be in the opening to show that my owens is refuted. Other wise i wont believe you for a second.

So people who say they refute need to back it up in spades. Like more than one game of beating a past or present world champion.

I agree, the KID is far from refuted. I remember looking at the Bareev-Radjabov Game in the Chesspublishing.com column is Chess Life and Radjabov seemed to be fine throughout the game. However, Kasparov's point about playing the Sicilian and KID is absolutely true. I used to play the KID along with my standard Dragon and found the theory to be too overwhelming so I switched to the Dutch. If you play another opening against 1. e4 that requires less theory than a Dragon or Najdorf and can learn another major opening, KID is an excellent choice and a fierce defense. I loved the positions I would get when playing the KID. But between all the novelties coming out of the Classical Variation and the constant need to keep up to date with the Saemisch, I just couldn't do that and keep up with the Dragon Yugoslav as well. For those who are having trouble managing the theory of a Sicilian or 1...e5 along with the KID, I would recommend the Dutch (Modern Stonewall or Leningrad) or Modern/Pirc (1...d6) as they are both solid openings which, like the KID, can also arise from 1. Nf3 and 1. c4. I especially like playing 1...f5 against the English.

I have played the KID pretty much since Christ walked the earth... I have recently begun to hear it's been "refuted".     It's at times like these that I'm glad I'm a skeptic by nature, because I find that difficult to believe.  Nonetheless, I've heard it from more than a couple of otherwise reputable sources, and Garry Kasparov and Judit Polgar seem to have stopped playing it.  Is that largely due to fashion, or is there something to it?  What is the line that "they" say "refutes" the KID?

Personally, the KID is not always a good weapon for me because I like a good fight.  When White wimps out and plays something "solid" or "unassuming", my first reaction is "how silly---FIGHT, you moron!" and my second reaction is "I'm falling asleep here at the chessboard".  Which is usually a psychological victory for my opponent.  So, I've started looking at the ...e6 stuff, but that's another topic. 

Can anyone tell me what this stuff is about the KID being "refuted", and by what?

Thanks!