Bibs wrote on 07/02/09 at 10:56:52:


Sure, that's why I put in the smiley. But in this case there may be some additional aspects: In this line the usual attack vs the white king simply does not happen. Additionally the average KID-Devotees (that I've met at least) usually  is not really a "patient" player


Bibs wrote on 07/02/09 at 10:56:52:


Well ... maybe an important "features" of this line is, that it is not used very often. If the analysis in the book is correct (no checks done), there's a relatively easy way for black to equalize.

I would like to share my impressions in internet-blitz-games with a line mentioned in the book, the KI-classical with f3 and g4
(1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 e5 7.O-O Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.Ne1 Nd7/e8 10.f3 f5 11.g4)

What I did is reading the chapter (not at all learning the line), trying to remember the plans, and playing it in blitz games. This is what I usually do to test a line that is a candidate for "repertoire-change".
The idea simply is to get to know wether I "feel" the position or not.
Afterwards I asked serveral opponents if they liked that line or not

Currently the number of games may be about 50, so it it limited, but I guess not worthless. The opponents were rated between 1900 and about 2250 at the server.

- Lower rated players and those that didn't know the line usually either played 
- 11...f4 without closing the queenside (with lets say ...c5) which IMHO more or less automatically leads to a white win
- 11...fxg4 after which the usual kingside counterplay more or less is gone. Those games had a higher percentage of draws due to the fact that there is just one open file, where sometimes the heavy artillery was exchanged. Whites risk to lose the game  in that line IMHO is about zero. He plays with a secure draw in hands with a slight advantage for a win.

The higher rated player sometimes outplayed me due to my lacking theoretical knowledge, especially in the line with 11...Kh8.

More or less everybody (who answered me) said that he / she disliked the resulting positions (Because they are "boring" and similar stuff  ).

All this convinces me that the line is a good idea for positional players to incorporate them into their repertoire.

Sorry about that. I just saw it on the Live Games section of the tournament website the other day. Unfortunately, there was another round yesterday and the Live Games has been replaced (obviously). The current Live Game has Giri-Bitalzdeh which Giri won. As mentioned, I cannot locate the pgn. There are some games on Chessvibes http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/only-spoelman-still-on-100-in-hilversum/ but unfortunately not this particular game. It is Rd 4. May just have to wait for TWIC, I think.

The reason I posted this was something that happened during the Oceania Zonal where in a Live Blog (at http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html, a 4-pawns game appeared and a spectator commented on 4-pawns attack in general, saying it was rarely played. I made the comment: expect more since the publication of the book "Kill the KID". Then I saw the Giri-Nijboers game and I thought, hang on! is this a pattern? Giri, a junior trotting out the 4-pawns. In the Ocenia Zonal the player who trotted out the 4-pawns was also a junior.

Here is that game (mind you B is only 1500ish):

[Event "2009 Oceanic Zonal Open"]
[Site "Tweed Heads"]
[Date "2009.06.20"]
[Round "1.29"]
[White "Brown, Andrew"]
[Black "Raicar, Gaurav"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A68"]
[WhiteElo "2085"]
[BlackElo "1560"]
[PlyCount "43"]
[EventDate "2009.06.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "AUS"]
[Source "MonRoi"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f4 O-O 6. Nf3 c5 7. d5 e6 8. Be2 exd5 9. cxd5 Bg4 10. O-O Nbd7 11. Nd2 Bxe2 12. Qxe2 Ne8 13. a4 a6 14. a5 f5 15. exf5 Rxf5 16. Qe6+ Kh8 17. g4 Rf6 18. Qe2 Rf7 19. Nde4 Re7 20. g5 Bd4+ 21. Kg2 Ng7 22. Bd2 1-0

BTW, Bibs, what game was Parker-Radjabov?

GabrielGale wrote on 07/01/09 at 04:43:52:


Appeared to get butchered though. 
Similar to Parker- Radjabov?

Hey guys. Mr. Semkov, I love your book.

In a blindfold training game with a friend, he came up with this: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f4 0-0 6. Nf3 Na6 7. Bd3 c5 8. d5 Nc7 9. 0-0  9...Nd7!? 10. Be3 e6 11. Qd2 b5!?. What do you guys think?

The game continued 12. dxe6 fxe6 13. Nxb5 Nxb5 14. cxb5 Nf6 15. h3 (he tells me Rybka likes 15. Bc4! with a clear advantage to white) and I (white) went on to win.

Thoughts? I'm a bit confused about all this. His idea looks kind of original?

buffos wrote on 06/02/09 at 10:59:41:

You know, the problem is that engines generate a lot of stuff, but the difficult thing is to guide them in the right direction and then to assess correctly what they say. I remember when I checked analysis of the PP in the Najdorf. Even after  a day rybka kept insisting that White should resign while he had obviously a tremendous attack. 

I'm still amazed that in your variation 18...Nd4 19.Rxf6 Bf6 20.Ne4 Bg7 Black manages to survive as a human would think that he must be crushed - 21.Bd2 Qd8 22.Bg5 Qd7 23.Naxc5 Qc6 24.Bf3!? Nxf3 25.gxf3 b6 26.d7 bxc5 27.d8Q Rxd8 28.Qxd8+ Bf8=. There are many other options for White (not for Black - his play is forced) that should be checked. But that's why the book is entitled "1". It offers ideas for discussion. Some of them will stand, others would need corrections.

No, I have not tried IDEA. I try to generate my ideas and then I check them with Rybka. If you ask Rybka, it does not put 13...Qb6 even in the first 4 choices, so it's ideas about such an unbalanced position are not too helpful. But, of course, using it as an opponent in the analysis is obligatory.