I suspect we are all products of the Fischer & Kasparov generation of KID players.  While the opening may have experienced a bit of a lull (and now, perhaps, a bit of a renaissance), more than just KID players have been exposed to the KID just by playing through the games of world champions.  Playing through these games, a number of amateur players became hooked and followed their heroes into the KID, which means it's an opening for which the tournament player needs to be prepared.  In short, it's on the 1.d4 player's radar.

More to the point, our exposure of good GM games in the KID have also resulted in--I would argue--a better than average understanding of the basic goals for Black and White.  Not better understanding of the theory (which is always changing) or the evaluation of particular lines, but in my limited experience playing against the KID (I've been using the Bayonet), I have a good feel for what White needs to do and what Black intends.  I can't reel off endless variations by memory, but I do know that I want to plunk a knight down on e6 and exchange off Black's light-squared bishop, which can be dangerous in kingside assaults.  I know that Black will want to move his/her f6-knight to make way for ...f7-f5, and that there are certain principles and conditions that dictate whether or not I want to take this pawn, etc.

I don't at all mean to suggest that the KID is a bad opening or that I always win against it, but rather that the rules or ideas governing the middlegame may be a little more intrinsically familiar than in other openings.  The fallout of fashion, perhaps...

LeeRoth wrote on 10/07/07 at 16:44:12:

Ftacnik, Gelfand and of course Karpov and Kasparov seem(ed) to score well against it. Iirc Karpov has a huge score against the KID and definately a plus score against Kasparov.
I dont know how much they brag though

I really don't understand this fuss about Black being able to attack White's king.

White just needs to choose a variation that is NOT the Classical 7. 0-0.

In fact the majority of variations against the KID don't easily allow a kingside attack.
Take your pick:  3. g3, 5. f3, 5. Bd3, 5. Nge2, 5. h3, 5. Bg5, Petrosian 7. d5, Gligoric 7. Be3

In tournament games I have used the Gligoric 7. Be3, Samisch and Makogonov and in no single line am i in any danger of being mated. In fact what i do have is a nice spatial plus. I would imagine the Fianchetto to be an excellent weapon as well. Isn't White playing the same opening as Black but with more space?!

Lee's answer is exactly how I felt about the King's Indian before I spent about six months studying how to play it.

I studied both sides, played the black side in many blitz games and studied the classics.  It took me a tremendous amount of work, but I now feel more confident against the King's Indian than just about any other opening as White. 

I never feel comfortable playing chess.  I feel excited, nervous, angry at myself, or in a totally winning position in which I have absolutely no chance of drawing, bored.  I hate feeling bored and constantly ask myself why my opponent hasn't resigned yet.  For me, that's the key question that keeps me looking for the best technique in winning positions.

I think in the minds of many of us 1. d4 players, the KID is "antipositional" and "incorrect". It is not yet refuted, but when Fritz 33 is released, it finally will be.  

Afterall, Black encases his dark squared bishop and then leaps for joy later in the game if he miracously manages to free it. Well, why did you put the #*!&% bishop there in the first place....duh?  Then Black throws caution to the wind and stakes everthing on a King side attack . Surely, such reckless, infantile play cannot be correct?  

On top of all of that, Black is not even subtle about his intentions. He wants to destroy the White king. There is no subtlely here at all. He is coming dirrectly for my king? Hmm...this is deeply personal!! Such brazen unfriendly, caveman like behaviour must be punished. Black cannot be allowed to get away with this.

This sums up the feeling of many 1.d4 players towards the KID. Yes, we all know that the KID is not really anitpositional. And yeah, we know that dynamic factors can trumpet over static factors in chess. But surely still.......

I'm going to respond by being defensive for just a few moments.

As an ardent player of 1.d4, I relish the opportunity to score another win against the KID.  I also hate losing to it, even in blitz.  I don't think it's a bit defensive to brag about positive scores against a given opening, and I have quite a nice record against the KID.

Having said that, I believe that one major reason I am successful against the KID is that I respect the many new ideas thrown at me.  I don't pretend the KID is refuted, but I really like my chances, even against IMs and GMs when they assay the KID against me.  My last outing in classical time controls was a loss to an FM, but before that I had two draws against IMs and positive scores against players rated over 2500 USCF.

Please, bring on the KID!

I think the KID is making a sort of comeback too (not that it ever really lost its popularity). Just look at Monte-Carlo http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4164. Many KID games and White lost virtually every game where the main line wasn't played. Even if all games are taken into account, Black won something like 65%. Even the 2600+ players were struggling with it and lost some games. The Slav and Nimzo/QID did MUCH worse. The Slav/Semi-Slav particularly did very badly with something like 1 win for every 10 games lost. Of course, this is just one tournament, but it is encouraging for KID players. I still think that d4 players secretly hate the KID because it's perhaps the most aggressive response and Black is going for White's precious king.