BPaulsen wrote on 11/07/08 at 15:03:20:


I haven't faced Grunfeld set-ups often enough (nor done enough theoretical work on them) to agree or disagree with this.

In my personal (limited) experience though, I do less well - both in terms of position coming out of the opening and final result of the game - against Grunfeld set-ups against g3 than I do KIDs. 

You say "lines," I'm talking about "branches" (such as the Fianchetto KID) -- a significant distinction.  It's like saying that a master sat down with his computer years ago and came to a conclusion about the Saemisch or the Classical.  And saying that the Fianchetto is "very, very good for White" does sound to me like "busted" or "significantly downgraded" (from Black's point of view) from the usual book view of =/unclear with best play.  (It would be interesting to know if the new ECO is in line with previous books on that score -- anyone?)   
   
I don't agree that "all White can wish for in any opening is +=" -- think of e.g. the Latvian -- but if you say "major opening" then I agree. 

Thanks ANDREW BRETT.  I've played the English for years now and I have never seen this variation. I had always thought 5...d5 should be automatic. It's quite clever isn't it...since the dark-squared diagonal pointing towards f2 is one of the tender parts of the English setup. So it's no surprise if it is an equalizing variation.

Well, look, we're talking about a major branch of a major opening, which has been played by e.g. Fischer and Kasparov and continues to be played by GMs today.  I submit that (1) the most typical state of affairs in such a major branch of a major opening is that, at any given time, the best-play lines lead to an equal or unclear position;  (2) such major branches of major openings do not, as a rule, get busted or significantly downgraded in the way you suggest.

BPaulsen wrote on 11/06/08 at 22:23:50:


One might wonder if it gives you any pause that this conclusion is at odds with, say, ECO (1998), Emms/Nunn (in NCO, 1999), Small ECO (2003), Janjgava (2003) and Sarkar (in MCO, 2008).

@Kylemeister
Ah I see. Yes ...Qxd5 is definitely a very strong move there. 

@JonathanB
Mmm thanks for the warning. Sadly I don't have Donaldson. So a basic inspiration from Davies followed by looking through some games is the best I can do I'm afraid. Btw I myself deeply distrust the anti-KID line with early b4 that was recommended by Davies. Imho, the pawn thrust is overstretching white's position due to his lack of development. Which is possibly why I subconsciously erased the existence of that variation from my mind and forgot to mention it as the 5th option against the KID on the previous page. 

BPaulsen wrote on 11/06/08 at 21:45:29:


I know. I have great respect for the Fianchetto Variation. Disregarding whether it is += or =, these are the sort of structures I like to play as white. 

However, the reason why I brought up the Fianchetto KID in this discussion was because you have said that since you play Classical KID as white you don't need an English anti-KID. Thus as obvious as it might be, I was just reminding you that after 2.g3 it is actually physically impossible to play the Classical  . 
Your options are either:
  1. try to tranpose to the Fianchetto KID (at the risk of being steered into the Grunfeld as you've said)
  2. OR prepare an English anti-KID.

kylemeister wrote on 11/06/08 at 21:56:11:


It was the conclusion I drew from the work I did with FM Rensch when we were team-mates. Take from that what you want, I'm just stating the conclusions I've drawn are that it is good for white. White, in the most critical variations, was comfortably +=. 

The only problem at all with it in fact wasn't anything black could do in the KID, it was rather that the Grunfeld could come up, which was purely equal.