Holbox wrote on 05/22/07 at 15:11:07:


Semi-Tarrasch: the knight is already on f6.  After 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bb4, we've transposed into a Nimzo, haven't we?  4.e3 leads to a rather interesting QID line.  I don't have any practical experience with Cox's 4...a6!?, but I remember thinking it was worth a try...

...c5, ok, but if white avoids d5 then what? Tarrasch?

Thx

I suspect that below grandmaster level the QID can have real teeth if played by someone who has studied it carefully.  Of course, there is always 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5, breaking into a Benoni, which might serve as compromise for your interests in the KID.  I played this some years ago and won (and lost) many nice games...

exigentsky wrote on 05/22/07 at 08:04:52:

I dont quite understand this. 
Quote:

Well you have 3..c5/d5/Bb4 to choose from, all of them decent enough. Plus you have a move like 3..Ne4, which cant be bad.

In any case, just go through some games by the top in the KID or Nimzo and see which you like best. Dont worry about theoretical evaluations too much. They tend to be worked around in a real game.

exigentsky wrote on 05/22/07 at 04:29:48:

These lines exist everywhere, just look at the exchange in the KID. Whichever opening you pick, you will get lines you dont like and lines with which you feel worse or are under pressure.

Anyway you can just continue 3..b6 and if 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.f3 only then go 5..d5 and I am already starting to like black better. Otherwise I think Nf3 is inevitable at some point and you are in the petrosjan QID.

<exigentsky> 
I've been playing the KID for many years and IMHO it is completely sound in all lines. I'm sorry that I have no experience in the NID/QID. 

Anyway, several instances along the line I had met many challenges against the KID (which as you said, are the Bayonet and Fianchetto, among other lines) so I had my share of doubt against the opening. Yet, each time, I came back to the KID. I believe the NID and QID combo is also completely sound and in NID's case, very complex and interesting. However, I was especially put off by the QID, which seemed to me as an obtain-equality-and-draw opening. So...

I scurried back to the KID and worked harder on it. For me, the biggest headache was the Bayonet. Even though in the Fianchetto White seems to be able to get a solid-with-potential position out of the opening in the mainline, this is often an illusion and White can easily find his world blowing up into pieces. This can be proved by games by many KID champions. Off the top of my head,  Zita vs Bronstein is a famous example. 

In addition, Black can also deviate earlier and use other ways to create chaos. (For this I recommend "King's Indian Battle Plans" by Andrew Martin: it is not very well-organized but it gave me a lot of ideas and inspiration.) In passing, I must also bring you to notice the fantastic book by Gallagher, "Play the King's Indian" in which it demonstrates the power of the Gallagher variation against the Fianchetto, which utilizes several ideas from the ...exd4 mainline along with its trademark ...c5 and ...b5-b4. Although Gallagher himself confessed that he does not play the variation anymore (he became disillusioned with it after everyone started to prepare a special setup against it), it does not mean that the so-called refutations are concrete. In fact, there is room for improvement and this goes for all the lines. (Remember Kasparov also became disillusioned due to the Bayonet and look how easily Radjabov cleaned up his opponents in the variation earlier this year).

On the topic of Bayonet, until last year everyone from superGMs to amateurs like me thought the KID was just the Bayonet's whipping boy (it just wasn't fair  ). Then the angel Radj came and poured destruction on this so-called KID-killing-kryptonite. Everyone saw his method: be versatile, just rearrange the pieces, win the weak e6 pawn and maybe still get the KID kingside attack! Inspired by this, I went and did some new thinking and concluded that Black can actually safely win that pawn in many lines (though via different manoeuvres and after a bit of preparation). So now I again play the KID with full confidence. Your oppenents surely are merely "booked up" and against your deviations or secret and devastating improvements in the mainline, more often than not they will fall to bits. 

Before I finish this lengthy post (I'm sorry that I wasn't able to be more concise ), I share with you my opinion that actually the Saemisch can prove quite a hurdle and the ...c5 gambit in the theoretical books is not actually as safe as they might make you think...

Good luck with the KID! 

> In any case I think the QID/Nimzo and KID are both way too varied to just slap a label on them

Indeed.

Anyway, if you are bothered by 9.Ne1 and 9.b4 and don't think that attack is that good, then there is absolutely no doubt that 7...Na6 in the classical is where you should look.  It's a KID, but it's a solid KID not to mention it's been doing very well theoretically for a while.