Well, what I meant by damage was that against the weak opponents I played in non-critical lines, I tended to win a bit more quickly and sometimes even by mate. In the Nimzo and QID, it took more time and I often got a completely winning material advantage but no quick mate. Of course, this is not relevant to the strength of an opening, but I thought it *might* mean that the KID can be more effective if Black seizes the initiative. I really haven't played it enough to be convinced of this and I've certainly seen a number of quick and devastating Black wins in the Nimzo/QID. I suppose you don't think this is true.

If I could always play the Nimzo, it wouldn't even be a contest between the KID because the Nimzo generates about the same winning chances with far less risk. My main concern with the Nimzo is indeed what you do. White can avoid it with Nf3 and while I don't think this is objectively better or worse, it seems like it is harder to obtain a decisive result. Still, I have very little knowledge of the QID and maybe my impressions are wrong. (please tell me)

Still, it seems there are plenty of interesting ways to play the QID if a decisive result is important. For example: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Ba6 5. b3 b5!?

BTW: I know I don't have to play the QID, but isn't it considered the best response? Moreover, the QGD and the Bogo (especially with Nbd2) seem at least equally drawish? And, I still don't quite trust the Benoni even with Nf3. But maybe I'm wrong here too. I just looked through the database a bit.

I've looked at a lot of Nimzo/QID games and King's Indian games from Kasparov, Karpov (the fact that he likes the Nimzo/QID makes me a bit fearful, since he also likes the Caro-Kann) and over a dozen other players. I've also played both in at least ten games. I tend to favor the King's Indian in the non-critical lines; it just seems like I can grab the initiative more quickly and do more damage (please correct me if I'm wrong). However, when looking at games with the critical 9. Ne1 or 9. b4 (although maybe an antidote will soon appear or it already has), I would rather play the toughest lines in the Nimzo/QID (if there even is such a line). It seems like Black's kingside attack is not efficient in those lines and White's queenside play is stronger. And of course, there is the fianchetto variation to consider too. So, if I were to always face the objectively toughest lines in both openings, I would clearly play the Nimzo/QID. I hope this isn't too strange and I guess this suggests I should play the Nimzo/QID.

Also, as long as I am completely confident in the opening and know that even in the best lines with the most accurate play White has no tangible advantage, I do not have a problem with learning theory. If I don't have this confidence, like if I were to play a Benoni, I would have a hard time learning theory.

Again, for an active, dynamic ambitious player that wants to be able to win even as Black without undue risk (still wants strong reliable position), what would be the best response to d4? Maybe there is some opening I'm not considering. Does the Slav/Semi-Slav or even QGD offer better winning chances then the Nimzo/QID? How about the Benko, Dutch or QGA? What about the Grunfeld (I'm a bit unsure after the exchange variation with Rb1)? Are these other responses sound enough? What should I do?

Here's what I want from an opening as Black:

- completely sound and reliable.
- unbalanced, flexible and dynamic
- offers ample winning chances and opportunities to seize the initiative if White goes wrong

Against e4, I'm already sure I want to play the Sicilian and out of the Kan, Classical, Scheveningen, Sveshnikov and Najdorf, I currently prefer the Najdorf. Against d4, I am not sure what to play. However, the Indian defenses seem to offer the best winning chances while still being sound and so it's between the King's Indian and Nimzo/Queen's Indian. The King's Indian seems to offer good winning chances with the kingside attack, but 9. Ne1 and 9.b4 may be too much for Black to handle if he still wants to play for a win. The Nimzo/QID is perfectly sound but I'm not sure if it's dynamic enough and offers enough winning chances compared to the KID. Anyway, I like most of the positions in the KID and in the Nimzo/QID, but I can't make up my mind as to which suits me better. 

Please help me. To what kind of player do these openings appeal to? What do you think would be best for a player like me?