[quote author=Uberdeker link=1167167025/0#9 date=1167340494]
I am highly interested in the opening phase for its strategic content. Searching for ideas in this field is one of the great attractions of chess. This is why I read the posts and write myself on the forum. But I don't think you can base your opinion as to which lines should ultimately lead to a win, draw or loss on software and statistics. At least not until a program capable of calculating all the possible variations from move 1 is developped. Until then, I'm glad to say, we must rely on our positional judgement. 
If you had said "current theory does not consider White to hold an advantage in any of varitions of the Grünfeld", I would have answered "Fair enough, that may be, I cannot judge as I do not keep up to date on these matters, which tend to regularly fluctuate." But statements such as "White has no winning chances" and "it's been analysed to a draw" are in my opinion, misguided.[/quote]

I agree here, though my positional judgment usually is completely different from Überdeker's ;) ... In the end all sound openings lead to a draw, don't they? Steinitz already knew that. But only few openings really are analysed to death (not even one of the openings Überdeker dislikes most: the BDG).
Dfourandwin: the main lines you gave are only the [i]beginning[/i] of a game. It is many defades too early to state "5.Bf4 draw". So I preferred indeed to read this as "current theory does not consider White to hold an advantage" and my answer is the same as Überdeker's.
The only sensible answer I can think of is: buy the two recent Anti-GID books. One is by Dearing on the Modern Exchange with 8.Rb1 and the other is called something like "How to gain an edge against The Grünfeld." But you could have thought of this yourself, I assume. Anyhow, following this advice will bring you further than a list of "Variations that seem to be analyzed to a draw."

PS Überdeker, have you read Alekhine's comment on Capa's "chess is dead" statement? It's on Winter's site, in one of the four very interesting reports on Carlsbad 1929.

This is to answer Uberdeker:

Look, if the Grünfeld had been analysed to a draw, then it would always be used by Black in must-draw situations in place of the most solid and passive lines of the QGD, Slav and QID (if

Not true.  An opening can be analyzed to a draw, but be very difficult to handle over the board without the help of a computer, hence the gruenfeld defense.   

I'm just curious Uberdeker why you bother posting comments on an opening thoery forum, if all you want to do is 'play chess'? 

To your question: 
By the way Dfourandwin, I'd like to know what opening you think could possibly give you "winning chances" vs Rybka? [size=8][/size]

Tell me the opening and I'll you the variation I think offers winning chances, if I know one.   

The Grünfeld is an ambitious and risky defence, certainly not a "drawing weapon".

If its risky, give me a variation which is risky, because thats exactly why I started this thread!

Cool Uberdeker ! If i dont make a mistake Kasparov said that he analysed the Grunfeld to a draw some years ago ... but the interest remains to be shown for amateurs and over the board play. Do you know many players weacker than you who memorize endless drawing continuations ? Most of the time they will forget a move and loose without playing a single move.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bg5 dxc4 looks very sound - so this might be another one for your "not offering winning chances against the GID" list.

I guess I would be curious what he currently plays against it?

HI.

I've been researching many of the tries against the gruenfeld defense with books, the chessbase database, and rybka, and it seems there are arent any variations which give white winning chances vs. a strong engine like Rybka. 


Variations that seem to be analyzed to a draw:

Most of, if not all of the exchange variation

Modern 8.Rb1  
1. d4 Nf6   2. c4 g6   3. Nc3 d5   4. cd5 Nd5   5. e4 Nc3  6. bc3 Bg7   7. Nf3 c5 8.Rb1

7.Bc4  
1. d4 Nf6   2. c4 g6   3. Nc3 d5   4. cd5 Nd5   5. e4 Nc3  6. bc3 Bg7   7. Bc4

The Bf4 system, which was analyzed very deeply a long time ago

5.Bf4  
1. d4 Nf6   2. c4 g6   3. Nc3 d5   4. Nf3 Bg7   5. Bf4

Russian System 
1. d4 Nf6   2. c4 g6   3. Nc3 d5   4. Nf3 Bg7   5. Qb3 dxc4 6. Qxc4 0-0 7. e4 Now I havent been able to show an advantage against a6.

Which leaves only the following variations which I havent gone through extensively

Fianchetto Variation 
1. d4 Nf6   2. c4 g6   3. Nc3 d5   4. Nf3 Bg7   5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. g3

5.Bg5 
1. d4 Nf6   2. c4 g6   3. Nc3 d5   4. Nf3 Bg7   5. Bg5

4.Bg5 
1. d4 Nf6   2. c4 g6   3. Nc3 d5   4. Bg5

And all of the misc. variations which are not played very frequently.

GM Glenn Flear: Do you agree with my summary above? 

To the rest of my gruenfeld friends, is there any consensus about which variation is currently the most promising for white? 

Feel free to post questions, I am happy to share analysis.