The problem of nomenclature is amusing: people started calling the exd4 followed by Nc6 line the Glek Variation in the 90s and then Glek switched to Na6 and started calling that the Glek Variation himself.  So while both systems should be attributed to Glek, the latter with Na6 continues to generate the most interest (as the writers here demonstrate).

I think Glek's earlier exd4 and Nc6 line is quite playable and great below master level because of its tricky tactics and piece play.  I think it became less attractive at higher levels due to Black's long-term structural concessions and the likelihood of many minor piece exchanges.

If I had the time I'd give you a thorough bibliography.  Among the better sources are the "Positional Repertoire" book by Gufeld and Kalinichenko mentioned above,  "Opening for White According to Kramnik, 1.Nf3: Modern Lines in the King's Indian Defence" by Alexander Khalifman, "The New Classical King's Indian" by John Nunn and Graham Burgess, two articles by Glek himself in NIC Yearbook (maybe volumes 39 and 41 -- it can be looked up at the NIC website), and some coverage in Gallagher's "Starting Out: KID."

As usual, the Khalifman material is most challenging and worth having.

Quote:

I play Na6, the reason is because there is much less theory, Black (And white) can start earlier with playing their own chess, which is why I play this game. Nc6 is just sooo much theory. I'd rather play a more quiet (But still interesting) position with still attacking chances then learning theory until move 30.

Ontopic: I think there are to many good alternatives for KI players to make the glek interesting.
Nc6 for the theoritican
Na6/Nbd7 for people who still like to attack without being outprepared.
etc etc.

kylemeister wrote on 03/22/09 at 19:17:51:


Quite nice and on the money I think. Perhaps Cyronix has a point that if want to play the King's Indian you have to do so wholehearted. But some flexibilty is nice.

Oh damn, you are right.
I just read the "Glek-Variation", but I didn't look at the moves ...
the Na6 variation is also called "Glek variation" ...
I made an error here and I am very sorry ...

to answer your last question:
the nimzo is a clear positional equalizer ... straightforward ...
so is the kid, it is a straightforward attacking opening ...
but this *Na6* move ... it just doesn't fit!
on the one hand you give white the queenside so you can play on kingside, but then you you change your mind and try to develop your queenside too, although your piece coordination is aimed for playing kingside ... this is not straightforward ... it's just a way of moving forward and backwards, this way you won't move much neither in one direction nor in the other ...

Schaakhamster wrote on 03/22/09 at 16:11:45:

As in many other variations there is no clear advantage for white ...
I think there is a variation in the mainline with white pawn to c5 on the 10th or 11th move that is said to be critical ...
I don't like Na6 anyway ...
if you play Na6 in the kid ... why play the kid at all?
Nc6 is more principled and more attacking ...
Also many GM's favor Nc6.
Also this has been discusses already ...

Hi all,
What ever happened to the Glek Variation in the classical?  1.d4 Nf6 2c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3 Nc6.  Is there a road to clear advantage??
Thanks,
Zatara