Latest Updates:
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Fianchetto Kings Indian from whites point of view. (Read 8890 times)
Novosibirsk
Full Member
***
Offline


Chess is my life!

Posts: 111
Joined: 04/26/08
Re: Fianchetto Kings Indian from whites point of view.
Reply #17 - 02/03/09 at 05:57:24
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 02/02/09 at 23:05:39:
I'm not sure what you're saying there, but the usual view (say, for the last several decades) has been that the Kavalek isn't quite as good as some of Black's other lines.  Of course "second-best" lines are often recommended in videos and repertoire books and such.



What I mean is that Kavalek is not probably blacks worst try. As I said I am novice in the fianchetto variation. The Kavalek seems playable. There are other 7th moves in the 6..c6 variation that looks more suspicious. And also if you can limit white..its not a bad thing.
  

“I don’t play chess anymore, I play Fischer Random. It is a much better game, more challenge. Chess is a dead game, it is played out. Fischer Random is a version of chess that I developed or invented.
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4503
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Fianchetto Kings Indian from whites point of view.
Reply #16 - 02/02/09 at 23:05:39
Post Tools
I'm not sure what you're saying there, but the usual view (say, for the last several decades) has been that the Kavalek isn't quite as good as some of Black's other lines.  Of course "second-best" lines are often recommended in videos and repertoire books and such.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Novosibirsk
Full Member
***
Offline


Chess is my life!

Posts: 111
Joined: 04/26/08
Re: Fianchetto Kings Indian from whites point of view.
Reply #15 - 02/02/09 at 22:50:27
Post Tools
TN wrote on 01/31/09 at 21:48:28:
@LeeRoth

Yes, that is what I meant.

@Novosibirsk

After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 0-0 5.Bg2 d6 6.0-0, Black's main moves are (in ascending order of frequency) 6...c6, 6...c5, 6...Nc6 and 6...Nbd7.

Which variations against each of these moves do you think give White the best chance of achieving an advantage?


Well thats what I am trying to figure out. I am not there yet. But I saw a video on www.chesslecture.com where David Vigorito propose 6...c6 variation and the Kavalek system (7...Qa5). He means this variation limits whites responses. White practically has only two good continuations after that (8.h3 karpovs choice... and 8.e4 which is most testing according to Lasha Jangjava). In the other systems white has more rich play and possibilities to deviate and find interesting side tracks. So what I can say so far is that 6...c6 probably not wont give white the best  chance for an advantage.

Roman Dzindzichasvilli also recommended the Kavalek system in his KID repertoire video. Roman himself also once drew Anatoly Karpov with the Kavalek system.

Thanks
  

“I don’t play chess anymore, I play Fischer Random. It is a much better game, more challenge. Chess is a dead game, it is played out. Fischer Random is a version of chess that I developed or invented.
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Antillian
God Member
*****
Offline


Brilliance without dazzle!

Posts: 1753
Joined: 01/05/03
Gender: Male
Re: Fianchetto Kings Indian from whites point of view.
Reply #14 - 02/01/09 at 02:38:51
Post Tools
Novosibirsk wrote on 01/30/09 at 18:29:51:
As I have decided to continue to build my 1.d4 repertoire with fianchetto systems (as much as possible). Now I am studying the Fianchetto Kings Indian. But I am impressed by its richness and complexity.  So the problem I have is to form a repertoire against the KID with this opening. I wont wait for Avrukhs second volume.

So my question is : Anyone here playing the Fianchetto against the KID ?  Is it possible to play it mostly by learning the ideas of the opening or do you have to devote your life to it ? .....like playing the open sicilian ? Jangjavas book just scares me off.


Good luck. However, beware of transpositions. So as not to be caught offguard, you will also have to learn the Finachetto Grunfeld and the Fianchetto Modern Benoni (or a line of the symmetrical English) since Black has the option of changing his mind and opting for either the Grunfeld or Benoni instead of the KID.
  

"Breakthrough results come about by a series of good decisions, diligently executed and accumulated one on top of another." Jim Collins --- Good to Great
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ghenghisclown
God Member
*****
Offline


Pedicare Vestri Latin

Posts: 1022
Location: HollyWeird
Joined: 07/19/06
Gender: Male
Re: Fianchetto Kings Indian from whites point of view.
Reply #13 - 02/01/09 at 01:06:16
Post Tools
I have to say, this conversation is total Bullchips.  As someone with extensive experience in the French and Czech Benoni (and some KID as well) I can tell you that ideas matter more.

I once lost to a very young 1300 player. He managed to zap me in a Pirc Austrian because I thought such a sharp opening would naturally benefit the higher rated player. Unfortunately, I played too fast and forgot the theory. However, this is an exception caused by the very recent growth of cd's, yearbooks, and databases. The vvast majority of time I find that experienced players below master level don't actually know the names of the variations or the theory. They rely on experience and positional judgement.  Even if already superceded by the latest theory.

So for example, I've won numerous games based on the concept of playing b3 on the White side of a King's Indian. I got the idea from a Kramnik game.  I play b3 because I'd like to play a3 and b4, but Black's a5 to a4 would shut this down. So by playing b3 first I can play a3 later. Suich a small thing, I know, but somehow powerful. Anyway, it works like a charm against the unweary.

As any GM will tell you, a great deal of theoretical novelties are arrived at by borrowing well known ideas or moves from analogous positions and trying them out in new ones.

So even though knowledge and practice in theory is becoming widespread, you will not find that the theory hounds know much - just their pet lines. Even in the above example, the kid allowed a forced draw so it's not like he played cutting edge either. So it really depends on which opening or variation you're playing. In general though theory doesn't figure as much, but comfort level and ideas.

Our club has a master/high expert that kills people in the Najdorf and Nimzo, but skip his fav Najdorf and play the Closed Sicilian and suddenly it's a different story. If theory were dominant, you'd expect him to cleanup against the Closed Sicilian.
  

"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Matemax
God Member
*****
Offline


Chesspub gives you strength!

Posts: 1302
Joined: 11/04/07
Re: Fianchetto Kings Indian from whites point of view.
Reply #12 - 01/31/09 at 21:56:43
Post Tools
@TN:
I dont know if I am right or wrong (or you) or if we are both right or wrong or if there is a misunderstanding - but it's not that important (especially for the topic of this thread) and so let's keep it this way.

But anyway you impress with quality and quantity - If I ever need a ghostwriter I will count on you... Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Fianchetto Kings Indian from whites point of view.
Reply #11 - 01/31/09 at 21:48:28
Post Tools
@LeeRoth

Yes, that is what I meant.

@Novosibirsk

After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 0-0 5.Bg2 d6 6.0-0, Black's main moves are (in ascending order of frequency) 6...c6, 6...c5, 6...Nc6 and 6...Nbd7.

Which variations against each of these moves do you think give White the best chance of achieving an advantage?
  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Fianchetto Kings Indian from whites point of view.
Reply #10 - 01/31/09 at 21:39:21
Post Tools
Matemax wrote on 01/31/09 at 13:11:34:
Quote:
By being aware of your practical playing strength, you can more easily identify your strengths and weaknesses, and also learn which areas of your game need the most work.

Hmm..

If I lose a rook endgame I think I should work on rook endgames. - Not necessarily, if you reached a lost rook endgame as a result of a tactical/strategic error. But if the player in question had a draw or win at some point, then I agree. But your rating should be used as a guide (along with the game, books and prior knowledge) to how detailed your knowledge of rook endings should be at your level.

For a 1200 player, knowing Lucena and Phillidor should be sufficient knowledge; for an 1800 player, knowledge of all the key Rook+Pawn vs. Rook endings is essential, whereas for a 2200 player it is also important to study positions with pawns on both sides of the board. The rating is used as one of several guidelines to find what aspects of Rook Endgames are most beneficial to learn.

If I lose by opening preparation of my opponent I think I should work on this specific variation. - Again, this is not always true; if you are uncomfortable playing the variation, you may be wiser to discard it from your repertoire and replace it.

Here considering your rating tells you approximately how much detail you should delve into in your study the variation. Below 2000 it isn't necessary to know all the theory on a line (a well-written book should be sufficient, or playing through some high-level games). Between 2000 and 2200 it isn't necessary, but it helps, and above 2200, it is very important to analyse games in the variation and record your analysis. Finally, above 2500, it is very useful to prepare novelties or little-known ideas to try out.

If I lose due to a tactical error I should work on improving my tactial abilities. - Correct. If you don't take into consideration your rating, then you may try to work through tactics books that are too basic or advanced. For example, if you are rated 1400, trying to solve the tactics in Informant will not be as beneficial as solving some puzzles on CT-ART. And for a 2450 player, solving the Informant puzzles and endgame studies will improve their play more than CT-ART, even though CT-ART is a very useful tool for sharpening one's tactical eye just before a tournament. For a player rated 2000, solving CT-ART will be more useful than solving Reinfeld's 1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate.

If I lose due to a bad strategical decision I should work on improving my understanding of positions. - Agreed. I admit that for this particular cause of defeat, rating does not play much role at all, except for deciding whether you should study a general book on middlegames/strategy or study the types of positions using a database.

If I lose because I am nervous... - Whilst your own rating is not relevant to this, your opponent's rating could be.

If I lose because of time trouble... - Write down the clock times for each move of the game. Here I agree with you, ratings do not have much relevance to this aspect of the game.

The rating does not tell me on which area of the game I have to work, only my failures show me. In extreme one may have an understanding of a master but perform like a woodpusher because he always gets in time trouble.

I think you misinterpreted my post. 'Practical playing strength' does refer to rating, but it also refers to each individual aspect of your game as a collective whole. I did not say (or intend to say) that the rating tells you which area of the game to work on; I said that it is a guideline (not 'the only guideline').

Just in case I made a grammatical error in my previous post, I will be more explicit: If you are aware of your practical playing strength, then by using your rating to compare the level of each aspect of your game with other players around your level, you can more easily identify your strengths and weaknesses.

Ratings also make it easier to learn which areas of your game require the most work, as at different levels there are certain aspects of the game that play a more important role than others. At club level, tactics play the most important role in a game, whereas at 2700 level, openings are one of the most important aspects of the game as the quality of play is generally very high.

If you need to work on ideas - good.
If you need to work on theory - good.
If you need to work on endgames - good.
....

But how and how much should you work on them, and what aspect of the theme should be the focus of your study? This is where the rating should be taken into account.

Taking endgames as an example: If you are rated 1300, it is almost as important to study pawn endings as it is to study rook endings because of the difficulty of pawn endings and the themes which are common to several types of endgames, whereas at 2000 level studying Rook+2 Pawns vs. Rook with 0-1 Pawns is more beneficial than studying Rook vs. Pawns, as Rook Endings occur much more frequently than Rook vs. Pawns endings. But at 2200 level, it is important to know both types of endings, because of the tricky nature of Rook vs. Pawns endings.

But it all depends on the individuum (on "you") and not on a certain rating level. I find this comment paradoxical. It does all depend on the individuum, but their rating level is a feature of them, and therefore if the rating level was a completely irrelevant factor, then the individuum would not be an entirely relevant factor.

"You can more easily identify your strengths and weaknesses, and also learn which areas of your game need the most work."
- not the rating tells you but the game, the post-mortem and your conclusions


I stated this earlier, but I will repeat myself once more: The rating doesn't tell you, it assists you.
  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1380
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Fianchetto Kings Indian from whites point of view.
Reply #9 - 01/31/09 at 17:11:23
Post Tools
TN presumably using rating as a way to assess the level of the opposition.  The point, I take it, is that if you play opposition up to a certain level, then you'll be fine if you know general ideas and a little bit of theory, and you don't need to kill yourself learning reams of theory.  At some point, as you move up the ranks, you'll start meeting better players more regularly.  At that point, you may find yourself having to work on your theory.  None of this strikes me as that controversial, and having occasionally played the fianchetto myself, I personally agree with it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Matemax
God Member
*****
Offline


Chesspub gives you strength!

Posts: 1302
Joined: 11/04/07
Re: Fianchetto Kings Indian from whites point of view.
Reply #8 - 01/31/09 at 13:11:34
Post Tools
Quote:
By being aware of your practical playing strength, you can more easily identify your strengths and weaknesses, and also learn which areas of your game need the most work.

Hmm..

If I lose a rook endgame I think I should work on rook endgames.

If I lose by opening preparation of my opponent I think I should work on this specific variation.

If I lose due to a tactical error I should work on improving my tactial abilities.

If I lose due to a bad strategical decision I should work on improving my understanding of positions.

If I lose because I am nervous...

If I lose because of time trouble...

The rating does not tell me on which area of the game I have to work, only my failures show me. In extreme one may have an understanding of a master but perform like a woodpusher because he always gets in time trouble.

If you need to work on ideas - good.
If you need to work on theory - good.
If you need to work on endgames - good.
....

But it all depends on the individuum (on "you") and not on a certain rating level.

"You can more easily identify your strengths and weaknesses, and also learn which areas of your game need the most work."
- not the rating tells you but the game, the post-mortem and your conclusions
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Fianchetto Kings Indian from whites point of view.
Reply #7 - 01/31/09 at 12:34:42
Post Tools
Matemax wrote on 01/31/09 at 11:55:45:
ghenghisclown wrote on 01/31/09 at 10:53:00:
I like TN's post. It was useful (good suggestions for study) and to the point. I don't think it's a problem to say that below a certain rating, it's mostly about ideas. Maybe that's not true in the sharp lines involing Nc6,Rb8, and Na5. But is this going to be played accurately at below 2000 level?

Sorry this is wrong - the rating only reflects your practical results in chess. The rating is not a guideline how to study chess and how to improve - the rating is the answer to your fights over the board.

... and of course everyone gives a lot of useful comments here, no doubt!


@ghenghisclown, Novosibirsk

Thanks for your complimentary words.

@Matemax

I disagree with both your points, which I will address separately.

a) 'Sorry Sir but for me this is rubbish'

Why? I find it hard to believe that a <2100 player needs to know 15 moves of theory in each main variation to be able to play the Fianchetto Variation successfully. I know plenty of players below 2100 who don't know much theory in the Fianchetto variation (in some cases they are out of book on move 10), but they know all of White's main plans, have some experience in the lines and are tactically strong enough to not fall into an opening trap, even if taken by surprise.

b) 'The rating only reflects your practical results in chess. The rating is not a guideline how to study chess and how to improve - the rating is the answer to your fights over the board.'

While you are spot on by saying that ratings reflect practical results in chess, stating that the rating is not a guideline for studying chess or how to improve seems illogical to me. By being aware of your practical playing strength, you can more easily identify your strengths and weaknesses, and also learn which areas of your game need the most work.

Edit: If there are any variations which you feel require a large degree of opening knowledge from White in order to avoid getting a worse position, feel free to mention them. However, if White is worried about such options, then the flexibility in his position should enable him to avoid or at least neutralise them.
  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Matemax
God Member
*****
Offline


Chesspub gives you strength!

Posts: 1302
Joined: 11/04/07
Re: Fianchetto Kings Indian from whites point of view.
Reply #6 - 01/31/09 at 11:55:45
Post Tools
ghenghisclown wrote on 01/31/09 at 10:53:00:
I like TN's post. It was useful (good suggestions for study) and to the point. I don't think it's a problem to say that below a certain rating, it's mostly about ideas. Maybe that's not true in the sharp lines involing Nc6,Rb8, and Na5. But is this going to be played accurately at below 2000 level?

Sorry this is wrong - the rating only reflects your practical results in chess. The rating is not a guideline how to study chess and how to improve - the rating is the answer to your fights over the board.

... and of course everyone gives a lot of useful comments here, no doubt!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Novosibirsk
Full Member
***
Offline


Chess is my life!

Posts: 111
Joined: 04/26/08
Re: Fianchetto Kings Indian from whites point of view.
Reply #5 - 01/31/09 at 11:16:19
Post Tools
Thanks TN and Bibs and for  useful info . I also saw that Czhech  GM Jan Smejkal  also seems to have played the Fianchetto variation a lot. Wojtkjizewich games also seem very instructive. So I have now started to work out a repertoire. It will take its time!!
  

“I don’t play chess anymore, I play Fischer Random. It is a much better game, more challenge. Chess is a dead game, it is played out. Fischer Random is a version of chess that I developed or invented.
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
ghenghisclown
God Member
*****
Offline


Pedicare Vestri Latin

Posts: 1022
Location: HollyWeird
Joined: 07/19/06
Gender: Male
Re: Fianchetto Kings Indian from whites point of view.
Reply #4 - 01/31/09 at 10:53:00
Post Tools
I like TN's post. It was useful (good suggestions for study) and to the point. I don't think it's a problem to say that below a certain rating, it's mostly about ideas. Maybe that's not true in the sharp lines involing Nc6,Rb8, and Na5. But is this going to be played accurately at below 2000 level?
  

"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Matemax
God Member
*****
Offline


Chesspub gives you strength!

Posts: 1302
Joined: 11/04/07
Re: Fianchetto Kings Indian from whites point of view.
Reply #3 - 01/31/09 at 09:46:17
Post Tools
Quote:
If you are under 2100, then you should be able to play it solely by knowing the key ideas, themes and manoeuvres, along with awareness of the main traps. However, above this level a proper knowledge of the theory is required.

Sorry Sir but for me this is rubbish  Roll Eyes
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Fianchetto Kings Indian from whites point of view.
Reply #2 - 01/31/09 at 08:27:31
Post Tools
I have played the Fianchetto KID with both colours, albeit not as a main weapon of choice. The detail required to learn it with either colour depends on your level. If you are under 2100, then you should be able to play it solely by knowing the key ideas, themes and manoeuvres, along with awareness of the main traps. However, above this level a proper knowledge of the theory is required.

With all due respect to Jangjava, I wouldn't spend my time studying his book, as it resembles a database dump sprinkled with 'b212', '+=', 'black should play this...(no further comment)' and the like. I must confess that I don't own the book, but I have looked at it and also seen a couple of reviews confirming this.

Some strong GM's whose games in the Fianchetto KID are worth studying are (in alphabetical order): Akopian (hasn't lost a single game with it yet), Andersson, Arkell, Bu Xiangzhi, Dautov, Georgiev (these last two have played a dozen games each in this line), Granda Zuniga, Huebner, Ivanchuk (most of his games in this line are rapid time-controls, but still instructive), Jussupow (beat 2600's with it in the early 1990s), Karpov (definitely the main expert in this line in the 1990s), Kortschnoj (he has some creative ideas), Nikolic (this GM is a KID-murderer; +9 =4 -0), Lajos Portisch, Sargissian (he knows his openings well), Tregubov, Wojtkiewicz (to answer Bibs's question).
  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2106
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Fianchetto Kings Indian from whites point of view.
Reply #1 - 01/31/09 at 08:12:50
Post Tools
Considering the plethora of lines available to black, best clear your diary.

That said, certainly a real challenge to the KID (in my experience as black anyhow), so ultimately may well be worth the effort.

Gurus: Wojtkievicz (sp?), Arkell, one of the Chinese fellas.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Novosibirsk
Full Member
***
Offline


Chess is my life!

Posts: 111
Joined: 04/26/08
Fianchetto Kings Indian from whites point of view.
01/30/09 at 18:29:51
Post Tools
As I have decided to continue to build my 1.d4 repertoire with fianchetto systems (as much as possible). Now I am studying the Fianchetto Kings Indian. But I am impressed by its richness and complexity.  So the problem I have is to form a repertoire against the KID with this opening. I wont wait for Avrukhs second volume.

So my question is : Anyone here playing the Fianchetto against the KID ?  Is it possible to play it mostly by learning the ideas of the opening or do you have to devote your life to it ? .....like playing the open sicilian ? Jangjavas book just scares me off.
  

“I don’t play chess anymore, I play Fischer Random. It is a much better game, more challenge. Chess is a dead game, it is played out. Fischer Random is a version of chess that I developed or invented.
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo