You should be able to, it was covered in a past update.

It's definitely of theoretical interest to white players that are frustrated that the Bayonet is kind of...meh theoretically right now, and since 9. Nd2 has yet to get an improvement over, I think it was, Van Wely - Kramnik, 2008 (could be wrong on the player - it occurred in the 9...a5 with ...Bd7 variation).

I think there's going to be a boom of popularity for 9. Ne1 in the near future. There's a terrific amount of fertile ground, and we've already seen 10. f3/11. g4 get a lot of play recently. There's also a thread here discussing an important line of 9. Ne1 here, and Kozul's Gambit hasn't been fleshed out that much, either.

Me too.

But this whole thread should be moved to General Chess.  Moderator?

gramsci wrote on 11/12/09 at 07:38:36:


Easy: look at strong players who plays the najdorf against 1.e4. What do they play against 1.d4 ? The grunfeld !

What I mean is in the Najdorf you may lose because you are playing with black, but it is theoretically sound, nobody doubts, and gives you a funny, rich game. Against 1.d4 I haven't been able to find something similar. Give a hand please!

I realize that we're in the King's Indian group, but since we're already discussing openings like the Dutch, Benoni, Semi-Slav, etc., I just wanted to express my surprise that no one has mentioned the Nimzo/Bogo/QID complex.  There is no exchange variation (as in the Slav move order) and no variation where white gets a significant initiative (as in the Bayonet Attack).  And (almost) every position is strategically interesting and instructive.  I personally think that the Nimzo/QID is the best defense against 1.d4, but I'm not as strong as many of the other posters here, so I respectfully defer to their expertise. 

Best,
Scott

Me too, brother.  But linkspringer, I don't have such a low opinion of the Leningrad as you.  I think it's dicey, but dynamic.  I played it for a while, and I won't say I won all my games, but I won my share, nobody blew me off the board.

There's a "Good Boy, Bad Boy" thing in chess.  Want to be a good boy?  Play the Slav or the Nimzo.  Want to be a bad boy?  Play the Modern Benoni or the Leningrad.  I don't know who does better, the good boys or the bad, but I think it's more fun to be a bad boy.

Markovich wrote on 11/11/09 at 20:15:24:


In 1997, I picked up a book called "Leningrad Dutch: Strategy and Tactics" that was a really depressing read from Black's point of view: all main lines left Black struggling...
Quite recently I had cause to look into Leningrad Dutch theory again, from White's point of view. To my 'dismay', it looked like Black is in pretty good shape again! Lots of interesting improvements in all the main lines. Even the ...Nc6 line is alive.
The Leningrad may be borderline for the 2700+ club, but it seems below that it is sound enough for many titled players looking for rich, active play. 

In other words, against 1.d4 there is some defence theoretically sound  that gives you a "rich play"?

I think that attacking chances are a big luxury for Black, not only in the systems we've been discussing.  As we all know, even in the KID, there are many lines that White can play that offer Black scant chances of developing a routine attack.  The most enterprising defenses offer Black "rich play."  But they don't necessarily offer an attack.

If you MUST attack I feel sorry for you, but I would recommend you play the Stonewall Dutch and use the old method of ...Qe8, ...Qh5, ...Kh8, ...Rg8 and so forth.  Or play the Hennig-Scharra Gambit, or the Albin.  That will work well enough at the club level, but not in the league that BPaulsen and many others here play in.

Ivanchuk's line against Cheparinov certainly poses some problems, but Black can play the ...Na6 lines, or 11...Kh8, or even just straight up find an improvement, in the KID there's always room for fixing lines somewhere. 

Also, I also preferred to play against the London, Torre, Tromp, etc....when I haven't committed to ...d5 yet. I feel like it frustrates London, Torre, and Stonewallers to know that I haven't given up the e5-square yet.

Which is the problematic variation in the Mar de Plata? 
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 O-O 5. Be2
d6 6. Nf3 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. Ne1
Nd7 10. Nd3 f5 11. Bd2 Nf6 12. f3 f4 13. c5
g5 14. Rc1 Ng6 15. Nb5, maybe?
By the way, don't you think that d-pawn specials and other "anti" lines are easier to play in the Semi-Slav than in the KID?

So if the Bayonet Attack is not currently as dangerous as it used to be, why top level players who left KID (Polgar, Shirov, Gelfand...) don't play it again letting the Semi-Slav becomes a sort of standard against 1.d4 as the Sicilian is against 1e4.?
I apreciate your advices. Thanks.

I was under the impression the Bayonet has been mostly defanged, particulary in the 12...Kh8 variation (9. b4 Nh5 10. Re1 f5 11. Ng5 Nf6 12. f3 Kh8), so there's not much of a reason to hide from it. Against 13. Ne6 Radjabov's 14...Re8!? seems sufficient (14...Nc6 is also interesting, but 14...Nh5 seems to be good for white based on Cheparinov-Radjabov), and I'm not aware if white has anything after 13. Rb1.

Aside from that, both offer extremely rich play. 
 
I would consider the Semi-Slav to be ambitious, much like the KID, especially with some of the tactics that can come up in critical variations. However, I'd also say that theoretical knowledge possibly plays a bigger role in the Semi-Slav than the KID. With the KID the ideas matter more, whereas with the Semi-Slav a slight slip up comes at a higher cost.