Richard I do remember that you've come up with some interesting and good ideas in openings like the Evan's Gambit, but you're clearly out of your element here.  Even in the variation (game) you gave where second best moves abound, Black is clearly better if not winning.  I suggest, instead of playing against Fritz 8, that you try out some of these ideas in correspondence or email tournaments since you say you play poorly OTB.    I'm sure many of your opponents will show you the downsides of overextension and slow development.  For what it's worth after 16.Nd5 Black can play 16...Ba6 and have a very good position.

Steinitz's theories were ridiculed for decades and his dictum, "A pawn is worth a little trouble" did not impress his contemporaries so his theories were largely ignored for many years. I thought the post might like an example of my theories in action, so I played the following King's Indian Defense in my 6.b4 variation. To make it a valid test, I am requiring Fritz 8 to spend at least an hour for each of its moves. Here is the score of the game. Using my theories, I spent a few seconds to a minute or two on each move.

Moody-Fritz 8 120/1 King's Indian Sloughter Variation

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nge2 O-O 6.b4 c5 7.Rb1 cxb4 (Since Fritz took 2 hours on this move, it must be considered one of the main lines---according to my theories, cxd4 costs Black a tempo and is no better)

8.Rxb4 Nc6 9.Rb1 h6 (A wasted tempo; almost any developing move is better) 10.f3 (A Saemisch) Nd7 11.g3 (A developing move as I define development) Nb6 12.h3 (ditto) Nxc4 (You will note that I made no attempt to defend the pawn because we have transposed to a very favorable variation of either the Dragon Sicilian, or more correctly, a Smith-Morra Gambit i.e. White has played e4, Black, c5. The only difference is that White gets contiguous open b & c-files instead of contiguous open c & d files. This is much better than the Smith-Morra because White has perhaps 3-4 more tempos than the Smith-Morra. The win should be just a matter of technique.

13.Bg2 Rb8 14.O-O b5 15.Kh2 (You will note, as if by Magic (hint) White has the h2 pawn available to him) b4? (Fritz just drives the Knight where it wants to go but sees it is just hanging a pawn for no compensation if it doesn't push it. I played 15.Kh2 because we are in an endgame and my King is one move closer to the center than the Black King. It has the residual benefit of getting out of a potential pin. 

You may wonder why I call this an endgame when no pieces have been exchanged. The answer is that for Black to make progress he must contest the center. I am going to own the center so the best he can do is chop wood & emerge with a postitional deficit. My strategy now is to create an outside passed pawn. My little guy on a2 is going to Queen in about 30 moves. The computer cannot assess the danger of the outside passed pawn because it is way over the computer's horizon i.e. it doesn't realize that my King Bishop controls the Queening square so this is going to cost the computer a piece at a minimum and more likely a Rook in 30 moves. If the computer doesn't contest the center, then I will win big material in the middlegame. Unless I make a terrible blunder this should be a routine win for White.

15...b4 (The horizon effect---the pawn is lost no matter what. Just e6 is better to prevent White's next move.) now the computer forces my Knight to go exactly where it wants to go i.e.d5/e3, so that I can gain a tempo and evict the Knight on c4, Fritz's only well placed piece, at the same time.

16.Nd5 +-

sloughter wrote on 01/16/09 at 11:19:30:

Bibs wrote on 01/16/09 at 14:39:37:


clarification, is the beating the KID book a good compliment to Avruk's book?  why don't we ignore this one person that seems to be annoying everyone?   

Gerry1970 wrote on 01/17/09 at 02:35:13:

 
Probably it wasn't considered good because expectations were too high, as indicated by the title of the book Beat the King's Indian . Timothy Taylor has a book out with an equally ambitious title, that everyone seems to have quickly forgotten or dismissed, perhaps with good reason. 

Tops

Hello All:

My question, in relation to Ender's comment, has got mired so I am hoping he or someone else can still help me. Ender said "I have this book and I'm not impressed at all. Krasenkow-system chapter is not so good."

Can anyone please tell me more about the coverage of the Makagonov/Krasenkow system? Is it not good because there is not a lot of good up-to-date theory or because the explanation of ideas is poor? Or do other people think this section is well covered. I play this system so I am appreciate any help.

Thanks,

Gerry

sloughter wrote on 01/16/09 at 10:45:29:


In all seriousness, you don't really learn from your mistakes, do you? Who proposed 7.a3 again? Might it not be the case then that other moves proposed by you are not as good as you think?

When I had about your strength (now I am slightly more than 200 points higher) and began to study openings systemetically I had found a novelty in the Dutch Leningrad. I was very proud of it and showed it to a few of my clubmates (rated about 1900). It took them 10 minutes to refute my idea.
That thought me two lessons and I think you should learn them too.
1. Moves that strong at such an early stage all are found already by top players. It is possible even for patzers like us to bring up good new ideas, but refutations simply are not there. Your claims 4.Ng5 is a forced win and the KID is refuted are ridiculous. If your claims were justified they would have been found a long time ago.
2. At least 90% of patzer novelties is plain crap - it's just that the patzer doesn't see it. To make the other 10% work demands painful, long and hard work; a random try out against a computer is by far not enough. Even when the patzer manages to find something really useful (s)he never understands and finds out all the details and nuances.

Example: About ten years ago I found an improvement for Black in the Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted. I analysed it and played it in a corr game - against a human being - and won. So I send it to NIC. A few years after publishing Morozevich used it; the game was heavily analysed of course. Of all this I had hardly found anything, despite of my hard work.

Moral: patzers like us hardly understand how the pieces move. If they keep that in mind they might turn up with something useful now and then. If they don't they deserve all the slamming they get.

In short: if your b2-b4 had been as strong as you think, it would have been a main line since decades. In fact it violates some established principles of opening play (controlling the centre, development, king safety). So it is up to White to prove that the move is even playable.
And now I will leave this thread on the KID-addicts again.

Bibs wrote on 01/16/09 at 15:37:24:


I'm laughing hard now, this really amused me, although I have to admit that I recognise in myself some of the 'surprise' of which you speak.  

Can this thread get any better??