Yes, KID is no easy opening for white. What do you expect from an opening that Fishcer and Kasparov have regularly played? I think this is often one of the greatest headaches for a 1.d4 player. I cannot say that I have felt fully at ease on either side of the KID. It is a very tense opening!
I think you can end up arguing in circles as to whether it takes more preparation to play 1.e4 or 1.d4. Personally, I think it is easier to make small alterations or additions to an 1.e4 repertoire than a 1.d4 repertoire, as the play seem to be more clearly defined by the early opening moves, and there tend to be fewer transpositional problems. In my opinion, the play in the 1.e4 openings tends to be more concrete. In a way, I think this factor make preparation easier in some aspects and harder in others. With 1.e4 I think it is easier to prepare against a targeted opponent due to the concrete nature of the play. However, to prepare against random opposition (as in an open tournament), I think it usually takes less time to form a fully conceived repertoire with 1.d4. But I think someone could easily give a convincing argument for a reverse opinion. Against a targeted opponent, the concrete nature of the play of 1.e4 can easily backfire in the midst of an unexpected deviation. Also, in forming an 1.e4 repertoire, there are many tricky shortcuts, so perhaps there is an argument for forming a full repertoire in a shorter time. If you look though the Secrets of Opening Surprise articles, you will notice that a large percentage of the ideas for white are in 1.e4 openings. However, the clear drawback of forming a tricky repertoire like this is that you will simply have a bag of tricks without a good foundation. However, to play 1.d4, there are certain fundamental middlegame structures associated with the main line openings, that cannot be avoided even if a theory avoiding approach is used. I think this is strong argument for recommending a 1.d4 repertoire for a young, developing player. I think at earlier stage in chess development, it is easier to see the ties between middlegame strategy and the opening in the 1.d4 openings. In contrast, the concrete nature of 1.e4 openings seems to make the classification of typical middlegames more difficult, as the positions have a higher tactical instability. Note that with higher instability, there is a greater chance of surprise. Theory is a double-edged sword!
So there is no easy answer, and just about every point for one opening can be argued to the contrary against another. But one thing is clear: an understanding of both 1.e4 and 1.d4 openings is important to achieve a high level of mastery in the game.
|