Willempie wrote on 10/08/07 at 07:29:05:


He also scored very well playing it as black

Quote:


There's also the major line with 6...Na6 (intending ...e5).

I used to play fianchetto lines against the KID and still do from time to time. Above all, the main problem is that Black can now go for the immediate d5 or play c6 and d5. This gives him a good game but of course White still has a very small edge.

I find in chess it is as much your state of mind that determines success, as it is the moves you play. For example, I am, by nature, a solid positional player. I do not seek complications and prefer to outplay my opponent from a solid foundation. I am happy to play endgames and queenless middlegame that many other players would consider 'boring'.

In my opinion, it takes more skill to nurse a small positional advantage through the middlegame and then convert it in the endgame, keeping my opponent's activity under control at all times than it does to shove a g-pawn down the board, play ...Bxh3 and mate on h2.

However, I play the Classical KID as White because its the only thing that I know in any detail. I also realise that my normal solid style of play is of no use here, so I change my mindset. To play these positions with either colour requires a fearless approach. So I dont wimp out of the big decisions, hunt that c8 bishop down as it my life depended on it and try and stay up on the clock (get seriously behind on time in a Classical KID and you're as good as dead). Do something like this, and you have a chance.

In the Classical KID the riskiest thing you can do is play timidly.

I have to agree with LeeRoth, its as much as mentality and fighting spirit of KID players that makes then so dangerous. 

Give me a QGD or Slav player any day, they are quiet souls that do not like structural weaknesses and are often partial to a draw. I'm happy to grind these guys down all day. A KID player is a very different animal, he plays without fear, and seeks to improve the dynamism within his position with every move. He does not shy away from material sacrifices and much of his play (esp in the Classical lines) is very easy(straightforward) to play....f5-f4, g5-g4 etc, you can see why its popular. In the Classical lines if White's plan succeeds he demolishes Black's queenside, if Black's succeeds he mates the king! 

I would think that the Fianchetto lines would be the most unpleasant (psychologically at least) for Black to meet as White has no targets for Black to attack and has a safe king. Yet these are the only lines I have never played. I have always played the Classical lines with White, although it has taken many years (and defeats) to turn this into a positive score.

Wouldn't mind taking up the Fianchetto lines, anyone recommend a good book? The only one I'm aware of is Ljangava's Gambit book.

Eric, 

I agree with your post, but it's ironic that a tidy player such as Fischer also played the Black side of the KID.  Tigran Petrosian made the KID look almost foolish, but Kasparov brought it back fully to respectability.  Unfortunately for KID lovers, he also sounded its (possibly premature) deathknell.

I generally don't like chaos in my chess games, but I can keep up with most players tactically.  I don't think I have to outplay my opponent tactically in the KID, I just have to keep pace and pressure Black until the endgame.  And yeah, I rely heavily on the Classical KID as White.

LeeRoth wrote on 10/08/07 at 22:37:52:


Please tell me why White needs to feel obliged to mix it up after 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3. I'm no expert on fianchetto theory, but looking at the positions every month from Mikhalevski's updates, the fianchetto just looks like a free grind for White to me. And Black is often the side who feels obliged to mix things up (not White), simply because of his inherent lack of space.