Hi,

Maybe its a littlebit of topic, but why do all KID players seem to have Rybka instead of Fritz? I know that Fritz values material more than Rybka. Is that the difference?

Thanks

But classical KID is an opening where the real fight starts at move 18 or so. Therefore you can analyse very deep into the middlegame.

Ametanoitos wrote on 09/15/09 at 17:38:01:

Actually he does not go in for 10.e5. I did bring up Watson's recommendations before (page 6 of the discussion) and I hope you'll get some more constructive answers than I did.
Bonsai wrote on 05/18/09 at 18:13:03:

I did find Watson's ideas pretty sensible looking, so it seems obvious enough to taken them seriously.

^Further to that, I see some reviews are turning up for this book now - very positive. Here is one on Silman's site, by Rotella:

http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_gst_wrtrs/Kills_KID_1.html

GabrielGale wrote on 08/07/09 at 01:53:38:


I have Semkov's book, though not handy, and 7.Bd3 is indeed his recommendation.  Personally, just because of 7.Bd3, I think that 6...Na6 against the 4PA is not as good as 6...c5. 

You know, the deep theory of 6...c5 7.d5 e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5 Re8 fails to support any claim of White advantage (the jury is still out on Semkov's interesting ideas).  It's just that it is all so complicated, and White has so many options at various stages, that keeping up with it all can be a major challenge for a KID player. From this point of view, the 4PA can be seen as a practical weapon more than a theoretical one.  The deep complexity of Black's best line is what discourages many Blacks from taking it up.

Also, rip-roaring, open chess may not be to the taste of many who like Black's side of the ultra-closed Mar del Plata.

GabrielGale wrote on 07/03/09 at 23:06:05:

If somebody bothered to buy my book, he would have noted that I recommend 17 h5!, leaving the King on g1. This is a crucial tempo as I try to prove on about three pages. It is a pity that I spent weeks on that position, but things never came to it in the actual game as White deviated first.

GabrielGale wrote on 07/03/09 at 23:06:05:


Thanks for posting that game. 

Could it be that the 4 Pawns Attack is due for a revival, I certainly hope so. Or perhaps Chess Stars has a Killed by The KID project already in the pipeline.

Tops

Giri, Anish - Nijboer, Friso
Intomart GfK Open Hilversum, 2009
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 c5 6.d5 O-O 7.Nf3 e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5 Bg4 10.O-O Nbd7 11.h3 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 Ne8 13.g4 Nc7 14.g5 b5 15.h4 b4 16.Ne2 Nb5 17.Kg2 c4 18.Rb1 Qa5 19.h5 Qxa2 20.Be3 Rfe8 21.hxg6 hxg6 22.Rh1 Rab8 23.Kg3 c3 24.bxc3 Nxc3 25.Nxc3 bxc3 26.Ra1 Qc4 27.Ra4 Rb4 28.Rxa7 Nc5 29.Bxc5 Qxc5 30.Qa1 c2 31.Re7 Rxe7 32.Qa8+ Bf8 33.Rh8+ Kxh8 34.Qxf8+ Kh7 35.Qxe7 Qd4 36.Bh5 Rb3+ 37.Kh4 Qf2+ 0-1

It is replayable on Chessvibes http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/krasenkow-and-spoelman-lead-after-round-6-hilv...

@Bibs, "thanks" for Computer search 101. Great stuff. Ever consider a career as a teacher? I am sure your students will love you and your so very English sense of humour (and "rightness").

BTW, if it is too much of hassle, you really should not trouble yourself and burn those calories by actually lifting your fingers to type and oh! exercise those neurons (or as that quintessential English concoction of a detective, Hercule Poirot, love to say, those leetle grey cells) as well. Seriously, you don't have to reply and no one would ever think the less of you.

As said before, much appreciated for tracking down the link to the game. And suddenly Parker-Radjabov gains so much more significance than it ever did before like those 5-minute celebrities.

knightmare wrote on 07/02/09 at 10:13:45:


Whenever anyone answers that they find something boring you are onto a winner. 
'Boring' often equals 'I don't understand the complexities of the position...so will shuffle about and lose' 
Particularly with lower rated players.  Hence 'c3 sicilian is boring' and another one chalked up.

Yeah, havent looked at g4 properly for nearly 20 years, but its a worthy line.

GabrielGale wrote on 07/02/09 at 02:10:31:


??
Think, think a bit more, then ask.

Er, it was Parker-Radjabov.

Hint: PC > Internet > google > type in key words > hey presto:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1510509&kpage=1#reply1

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


I cannot find this game.

What round was this?

Tops

Look, 4 pawns attack by the world's currently youngest GM, Anish Giri (vs Frisco Nijboer):
http://www.hsgopen.nl/?page=verslagen
Cannot locate the pgn.

Quote:


Well after 18...Nd4 19.Rxf6 Bf6 20.Ne4 ,  Bg7 is not the best. Actually after 20...Bg7 white can get a small plus after 21.Nac5 Rf8 22. d7 Bd7 23.Nd7 Ne2 24.Qe2 Rf5 25. g4 Qb5 26.Qb5 Rb5 27 Ndf6 +=

best is  20...Qd8 21.Nac5 b6 22.d7 Bd7 23.Nd7 Bh8 24.Bb5 Nb5 25.Bg5 Re7 26.Nef6 Bf6 27.Nf6 Kg7 28.Qe2 h6 29.Bh4 =

IDEA will actually help you keep all your analysis in tree structure, automate your analysis, and just enchanche the experience of interactive analysis. For example more than 80% of your analysis in the book for e6,d6 variation was created using IDEA without ANY user interaction in about 5-6 days(and nights). IDEA is like a metro tunnel variation digger  

The general procudure , is leave at night to get variations, then interact ... (which separates the man from boys).

Once you try it i think you will love it.

In any case i really like all chess-star book. They are of very high quality

Semkov wrote on 05/30/09 at 19:10:15:


Much better leading to equality is

18...Nd4 19.Bf1 Bd7 20. Nc5 Qc5 21.Rxd4 Rac8  (19 b4 Qb4 20. Bd2 Qa3 =;19.Rxf6 Bf6 20.Ne4 Bg7=+;19.Bd2 Qd8 =+ is at least equal and most of all easy to play

Just a question. Do you know the tool "IDEA" inside Aquarium? Have you ever used it for such work? If no try it and you will never look back again.

I'm still searching for White's advantage after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0–0 6.Nf3 c5 7.d5 e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5 Re8 10.e5 dxe5 11.fxe5 Ng4 12.e6 fxe6 13.d6 Qb6 14.Ng5 Nf6 (a move not considered by Semkov) 15.0-0 Nc6.

My own suspicion is that at the end of the day, the 4PA will continue to be a serious practical challenge to the KID, but still not a theoretical challenge.

@ Toppy: I don't know that anything arising from 1...d6 2.Nf3 is very critical, since one could, and I imagine many 4PA specialists would, play 2.e4.

My copy finally came today.

From a quick perusal it looks to be a real labor of love and an important work. Neverless I have already found a hole in one of the major lines, namely 9...Nbd7, I spotted it immediately because this is one of my back up lines vs the FPA and as Semkov's recommendation was already suggested by reknowned FPA specialist Anatoli Vaisser many years ago, I had an antidote ready.

There is also a weakness in the coverage of one of the deviations: In particular the tranposition to the Classical KID!, yes the Classical did manage to make a cameo appearance after all The line goes: 

1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.e4 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.Be3 Nbd7 8.0-0 Re8 9.d5 And here Semkov only considers 9...Ng4, but in fact it is 9...Nh5 that is all the rage now and it has scored quite well for Black in practice, with Radjabov raising the profile of the line with a convincing win over Gelfand in 2008, indeed another top player Victor Bologan has played this very line quite often throughout his carreer and not without success.

Returning to the FPA: I have only barely had a chance to consider his concepts vs Black's main tries 9...Bg4 and 9...Re8, of which I have only had experience in the former. Semkov's main concept vs 9...Bg4 is an all assault on the Black king based on the pawn structure f4,g5,h4 and the pawn breaks e5, f5 and h5, this is quite dangerous for both sides, but particularly for Black if he does not know what he's doing. I would recommend a careful study of J.Parker vs T. Radjabov 2008, where Radjabov entered this dangerous structure a tempo down against a FPA specialist and still managed to prevail quite handily.  

Parker,J (2538) - Radjabov,T (2751) [A68]
24th ECC Kallithea GRE (2), 18.10.2008

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 c5 6.d5 0-0 7.Nf3 e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5 Bg4 10.0-0 Bxf3 11.Bxf3 Nbd7 12.g4 Ne8 13.g5 Nc7 14.Bg4 Bd4+ 15.Kh1 Qe7 16.Ne2 Bg7 17.Ng3 f6 18.h4 b5 19.Kg2 Rab8 20.e5 f5 21.Bf3 Nb6 22.Re1 b4 23.Be3 Qd7 24.e6 Qb5 25.h5 Bxb2 26.hxg6 hxg6 27.Rh1 Bg7 28.Qg1 Nbxd5 29.Bxd5 Nxd5 30.Qh2 Nxe3+ 31.Kf3 Qb7+ 32.Kxe3 Bxa1 0-1

This book also claims to be offering a new approach to the Four Pawns Attack, based on the original analysis of the author. However such a claim is not completely accurate, as the whole concept of this variation for White is to attack in the Centre and on the Kingside, nothing new there, the pawn structure along with all the attendant pawn breaks are all well known and employed regurlarly, nothing new there either. What seems to be new are the specifics and accuracy in the execution of these plans, and it is on these factors ultimately that the true merits of this book will be measured. 

It will take me some time to fully work my way through through all the ideas and analysis presented in this book,  before I can post a review that will really do it justice, but my initial reaction as a King's Indian advocate is that Black need not worry unduly. 

Toppy

Semkov - you've written a very interesting book and confirmed my suspicions that na6 is not so strong even though Hebden is still playing this but you may have seen him go 0-2 at the recent Southend tournament.

One point on the 'modern' section, it doesn't appear that your book deals with the KID nbd7 re8 followed by nh5 and bf8 as advocated by Dembo in the Dangerous weapons series. Have you any recommendation against that ?

On 9..re8 is anyone really brave enough to play this move as there is a lot for anyone defending to learn and the FPA isn't the most common line

Here's another idea - what happens after 9...Bg4 10. 0-0 Nbd7 11. h3 Bxf3 12. Bxf3 Re8 13. g4 Qa5!?  

Maybe the typical 14. e5 dxe5 15. g5 is a try, but after 15...Nh5 16. Bxh5 gxh5 17. f5, Black has 17...e4 and 17...c4, neither of which looks too clear to me.

gewgaw wrote on 05/19/09 at 18:11:03:


Does that mean Rybba is rated like 4000 ELO ?  

Just kidding.  

Antillian wrote on 03/14/09 at 18:04:47:



I have not had time to read all of this thread but I dont like the idea of any one wanting to kill the Kings Indian. This openings history is one of the most beautiful to watch. I have played the kings indian for the past 8 years loving every win and every loss. Its aesthetically pleasing to any one who walks by a game in the kings indian. I dont tend to fear any system of development against the kings indian. Every try leads to a good game of chess either way. 

Markovich wrote on 05/19/09 at 17:44:44:


It's without question worth the money. The approach in nearly every line is different than what what theory considers to be best. Secondly, the lines just seem more dangerous for Black, regardless of the final evaluations.

TonyRo wrote on 05/19/09 at 16:49:06:


If this is the case we really need an update, otherwise the title of the book would be misleading or pure marketing hype  wasnt that already discussed 

Quote:

I cant imagine a forced line until move 30 - be careful playing such lines with White, there may be a lot of nasty surprises along the way. I suspect a similar approach as in Khalifman's books where every line ends at least with a += just to tell the reader - "Hey look, I promise you an advantage in every line". In reality you can read += as = in most of the cases...

Semkov wrote on 05/19/09 at 13:48:55:


On page 25, you have the line starting with 9...Bg4 and 12...Re8 ending with 30. Rf5+=. That said, if you go a little bit farther, for instance 30...Rdxe4 31. Rxe5 Rxe5 32. Rxe5 dxe5 33. Ne3 Qb6 34. Kf2 Qd4 35. Qh6 Qf4+ 36. Ke2 Qxg5 37. Qxg5 Nxg5 38. d6 a5! = if you play it out farther....of course, it's a rather long line, maybe I missed something. There's also 33. g6 Nxf6 34. gxf7+ Kg7 35. Qxe5 Kxf7 36. Qe6+ Kf8 37. Ne3 Qe7 = or 33. Nf2 Qc7!=

All that said, it's possible that 23. Qg2!? is an idea, for instance 23...bxa2 24. Nxc3 and now: 

24...Bxc3 25. bxc3 Ne5 (25...Qa5? 26. g6! Ne5 27. Bd4, when White will play 28. Ra1 and 29. Rxa2 with a large advantage.) 26. Bd4 followed by picking up the a-pawn again, when White appears to be a little better. 

24...Be5 25. Nxa2 Rb8 26. Nc3 Rb3 27. Re2 and now: 

27...Qc7 28. Qf3 with a big advantage

27...Bxc3 28. bxc3 Rxc3 29. Qf3 with a big advantage

27...Qb8 28. g6 f6 29. Ra1!? with some advantage to White. 

Black can also try 25...Nc5, when White can try either 26. Bxc5 Rxc5 27. Nc3 or 26. g6 Qf6 27. Re2! but maybe it's nothing. 

I could have missed something obvious somewhere, but 23. Qg2!? at least leaves the game a bit more complicated.

gewgaw wrote on 05/19/09 at 08:05:56:


Well thank's a bunch for that.  Is that your analysis or a game?  I'll take a serious look at it.  But of course Black also has 15...Nc6.  

But as for chess, 9...Re8 10.e5 dxe5 11.fxe5 Ng4 12.e6 fxe6 13.d6 Qb6 14.Ng5 and Semkov now considers 14...Nh6 and 14...Ne5.  But obviously 14...Nf6 should be a candidate, and I can't see why Black is not reasonbly O.K. here. [/quote]

To play this line you need an imagination like shirov:

1.d4 Sf6 2.c4 g6 3.Sc3 Lg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0–0 6.Sf3 c5 7.d5 e6 8.Le2 exd5 9.cxd5 Te8 10.e5 dxe5 11.fxe5 Sg4 12.e6 fxe6 13.d6 Db6 14.Sg5 Sf6 [14...Sh6!?] 15.0–0 Ld7 [15...Td8!? 16.Lc4 Dxd6 17.Dxd6 Txd6 18.Le3 h6 19.Tad1!! Se8 20.Lxc5 Txd1 21.Txd1 hxg5 22.Td8 Sc6 23.Txc8 Txc8 24.Lxe6+ Kh7 25.Lxc8±] 16.Le3 Dxb2 17.Tc1 Sa6 18.Tf2 Da3 19.Dd2 Tad8 [19...b6 20.Tcf1 Tf8 21.Lf4±] 20.Tcf1 Sg4 [20...Tf8!? 21.Tf4 idea: Nb1+- 21...Sh5 22.Txf8+ Txf8 23.Txf8+ Kxf8 (23...Lxf8 24.Lxh5 gxh5 25.Dc2+-) 24.Sce4²] 21.Lxg4± Dxc3 [21...Lxc3? 22.De2 Lg7 23.Sf7+-] 22.Dxc3 Lxc3 23.Sf7 Tc8? [¹23...Ld4 24.Lxd4 cxd4 25.Sxd8 Txd8±] 24.Sh6++- Kh8 25.Tf7 Sb8 26.Lg5 Ld4+? [26...Lb5 27.T1f4 Sd7+-] 27.Kh1+- b6?? [27...a5 28.Lf3 Tcd8 29.Lxb7+-] 28.T1f4 La1 [28...Lc3 29.Lf3 Lb5+-] 29.Lf3 Lb5 [29...b5 30.Lb7 Tcd8 31.Lxd8 Txd8 32.Te7+-] 30.a4 La6 31.d7 Sxd7 32.Txd7+-

Here's one thing to add. Some of Semkov's lines still end in equality for Black. That doesn't really mean that this book doesn't change anything. That doesn't mean the 4PA sucks. Sure, it's the 4PA, and Black will always have something. In fact, you could go so far as to say it's the King's Indian, and Black will always have something, even against the toughest lines. The difference between all the lines lies in how hard it is for Black to prove it and navigate through all the White tries to equality, or something close to it. If you ask me, Semkov's book changes theory in a way that makes it harder for Black to prove he's okay in the 4PA, and that's all you can ask for as White if you ask me. 

In my opinion the 4PA is a great choice against the KID. Black rarely studies it as much as the other White tries, and it results in positions with a different flavor than all the other tries. 

To make blanket statements about an opening system that's been around forever, especially when someone comes out with something that apparently changes the state of that system, is just silly and unhelpful to everyone else in the forums.

Please don't accuse me of bowing, "genuflecting" or anything like that. In fact, elsewhere I have criticized the guy ( http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1238886130/0) , and I'm known on this board for reminding people of their title-worship.


My point is that we still have to take analysis produced by Watson seriously. What a facile thing it is to simply dismiss Watson out of hand.

Possibly the book is fantastic and turns theory on it's head. I don't think though that the burden is on the skeptics, especially since the book considers moves  "...considered either unimportant by existing theory.." and is "...akin to Monson's book on the Belgrade."

I'm not holding my breath.

Dink Heckler wrote on 05/18/09 at 21:39:30:


Not absolutely necessary, but it's a good check. If a Four Pawns advocate can't clear that hurdle, what should we say?

Markovich wrote on 05/18/09 at 12:45:25:

Well, as far as I can see there's nothing on Watson's 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 Nbd7 10. O-O Re8 11. Qc2 Qe7, there's nothing about Watson's 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 Qe7. 

Watson's alternative recommendation 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. h3 Bxf3 12. Bxf3 Rb8 is only covered with a brief "transposes to another line", when it is at least not 100% clear to me that the transposition has to occur after 13.g4, as black could have some extra options.

Markovich wrote on 05/18/09 at 12:45:25:


Jesting? Or confused?
If the latter, you may have become confused between two different threads: a KID repertoire book for black, and a white 4P text for white (this one).

It looks like some of the obvious sources were not considered for this book and in fact Watson's recommendations from the Guide to the Modern Benoni are not analysed, at all. I guess Perhaps Dangerous Weapons: The King's Indian came out too late, but Watson would have seemed obvious to me.

"My point is that I see the FP as giving Black the kind of game that he wants."
Well, I have just the opposite opinion. KID players like to stick to their typical attacks on the White king. They usually hate to be fiercely attacked  themselves by a well prepared opponent. This is the main reason I like so much the FPA. Many devoted KID players try tricky  move orders to avoid the FPA and land into murky positions in the opening.
By the way, if I was afraid that John Watson could refute my ideas, I would not have written anything. The truth is that Rybka and much better players will put an effort and they will certainly come up with something, but then other players will improve, and so chess is going on. I only claim that the old theory is wrong and I propose new ways backed with deep analysis. If someone can do better, let see him. It is easy to criticise, but difficult to come up with original ideas and have guts to throw them to the lions (sorry, to the forum members).

Semkov wrote on 05/14/09 at 13:45:11:


Emphasis mine above.

I'm not going to engage in an analytical war. Of course, I think you'd win anyway. It reminds me of the story of an argument between Bogoljubow and Sämisch. Sämisch kept losing the argument between the two room mates, but technically he was right. It's just that he was the weaker player. 

My point is that I see the FP as giving Black the kind of game that he wants. I had a good friend who liked playing this variation. Despite getting advantages sometimes he ended up clobbered because one slip and Black's tactical play is always just beneath the surface - ready to pounce. I doubt very much (sorry) whether a book on the FP can withstand scrutiny by say, John Watson or someone like him.

Also, this opening has certain qualities I don't like. Among them is the fact the preponderance of victories for White seem more related to rating than any other factor. You'd have to really upset the applecart, if you pardon the phrase, to demonstrate something worthwhile.

"To avoid getting ripped off by chess authors we probably must stop buying chess books."

Perhaps you do not realise that people actually have stopped buying chess books already! We at Chess Stars have always been trying to publish only the best works we can afford, but I'm afraid that many players cannot tell the difference. The flood of rubbish devaluates the really good books and makes it impossible to produce them. 

It is senseless to claim that the FPA sucks. Yes, it does, but my book tries to change that so one should comment on which of my variations exactly sucks.

Good, I can't wait for your review...

Markovich wrote on 05/13/09 at 15:10:51:


I don't find it's a problem. On the contrary, spilling more digital ink over the issue is.

I'm hoping we can go back to a discussion of what a Future Kill the KID should be about.

MNb wrote on 05/13/09 at 14:14:49:


Well he took it off the the thread, so it's only fair to clean up my response too.

By the way, the Four Pawns sucks.

Markovich wrote on 05/12/09 at 12:06:03:


Apparently not.

Uruk wrote on 05/11/09 at 19:17:46:


Could we lay off the title, already, and talk about chess??

Bibs, I consider the position after 9...Ne8 10.0-0 c5 (with reversed move order) as a main line, but of course I do not pay any attention to 11 dc6. White owns the centre and he  must keep it, but not surrender it.

It's interesting that McShane chose 10...c5 with apparent blockading intentions.  If I'm not mistaken, 10...c6 has been the main idea.  As White I won a few OTB games (not against the likes of Bibs or Topnotch, I admit) in that line with simple development and play on the queenside.  Be3 fits in, as I recall. 

@RubenKuijper.  Like I said, the 4PA is quite dangerous. I don't think that many people would argue with that.  Whether it is good for advantage is another question.  Theory would say not, but I have Semko's book on order from NIC, and I look forward to seeing what it says.

What to say, Semko. Our views are different. Mine are more exotic, possibly. (Already before 'Kill Bill' was released, I considered Tarantino, to whom you referred, as the most successful post-WW2 underminer of the Western/Christian civilisation). I am unhappy that I will not be able to read your book, which, I am sure, has a decent chess content and may bring some points for the less sensitive readers.

Sorry about my sense of humor. I thought if Tarantino could name a movie Kill Bill, I certainly can name a book Kill KID. Because the system I advocate aims exactly that. In my practice I rarely reach 40 moves, usually on the winning side. Now some clarifications.

1. I wrote this book not because I am a publisher and was looking for some catchy title or subject. I wrote it because I had a lot to share. I wanted to write this book ever since 1993, but I had a big hole in the main line. Only recently I finally found a valuable idea to fix it.

2. The book is only 140 pages because it is entirely based on original analysis. I believe that the whole theory of the FPA should be thrown to the trash bin and I do not use any of it. Sorry if you think 140 pages is too little. I know a lot of GMs who have not invented even 10 pages of original ideas of their own. I'm proud of my work and I hope that people who do buy the book will appreciate the quantity of information inside. 

3. I know very well that the FPA is not a commercial subject. Nobody plays it and rightly so. The main lines were good for Black. In both ...Re8 or Bg4 Black was doing OK. Well, I really think that after ...Bg4 Black should have hard time to survive and I offer a new approach for white. Systems with ...Na6 in my opinion are clearly in White's favour (I offer novelties to the repertoire suggested by other authors) and only ...Re8 remains challenging. Here was my main analytical effort and I came up with a new, mostly positional, system which I tried to develop as deeply as possible.

4. I have always wanted as White to have some aggressive weapon against the KID. There are little openings where White allows to be attacked the way he does in the Classical system. He may be better, but he may also end up mated, especially in rapid chess. I believe that such thing is not normal and White should have some means to fight for the initiative himself. THE FPA is one such try. Maybe there are other interesting systems that need attention. So in future we might  see Kill KID 2, but not written by me. I will be waiting for good propositions.  

I hope don't offend, but the title of this work is becoming a wearisome subject.  I suggest that if it's to be discussed any further, it be done in a "General Chess" thread.  Let's talk about chess here.

ghenghisclown wrote on 05/05/09 at 10:24:02:


So maybe it would be a good idea to write a book, titled, e.g.
Mein Kampf in the King's Indian
and to explain in the very beginning that it is not about Hitler in fact, so dear readers should not worry.
Besides, non-chessplaying Nazi may well buy such a book by mistake, or just because the title makes them curious.