ErictheRed wrote on 06/29/11 at 05:38:31:


That is true.  These systems are poles apart.  Actually, while I understand that you didn't mean it this way, I would compare the KID to the French for its often-closed character.

I disagree with "Gilchrist is a legend" that the Gruenfeld is the more practical choice.  It seems to me that practicality is all on the side of a system that can be played against any closed opening, where Black's first five or six moves can be played by rote, where Black's king is generally pretty secure.

I wonder how often masters admit publicly that they were wrong?

One would think that something as simple as counting the number of times an opening was played by players of a certain class wouldn't be worth arguing over.

I am sure both have healthy theoretical reputations, but for me at least I feel a bit uncomfortable being constantly in positions where the entire plan consists of a kingside attack that must succeed in order to win, or else lose if the kingside play fails. At least this is what happened to me in my games when I played the King's Indian. I had some wins against titled players with the King's Indian, but the majority of my most painful losses were with the King's Indian as well. I might try the King's Indian again sometime in the future, but I honestly feel more comfortable playing the Grünfeld regularly

I did not say that the Grünfeld was a better opening than the King's Indian, but it does seem more practical. How often do those grandmasters play the King's Indian? Two or three per year or 90% of their games? It seems also practical to at least try certain openings for surprise value.

Gilchrist is a legend wrote on 06/29/11 at 03:12:30:


um... just in 2011 the following grandmasters have played the KID. The very limited database I checked had 642 high level KID encounters being played by the following well known GMs. And 2011 isn't even half over. 

1. Nakamura
2. Radjabov
3. Grischuk
4. Aronian
5. Gelfand
6. Ivanchuk
7. McShane
8. Smirin
9. Nijboer
10. Svidler
11. Giri
12. Topalov
13. Howell
14. Stellwagen
15. Navara
16. Ding Liren
17. Sokolov
18. Gawain Jones
19. Kurnosov
20. Khalifman
21. Christiansen
22. Nepomniachtchi
23. Ponomariov
24. Guseinov
25. Delchev
26. Jakovenko
27. Bologan
28. Shirov
29. Wang Yue
30. Ehlvest
31. Fedorwicz
32. Nyzhnyk
33. Sutosvky
34. Hebden
35. Lalic
36. L'Ami
37. Vallejo-Pons
38. Kotronias
39. Mamedov
40. Petrosian
41. Inarkiev
42. Ganguly
43. Grandelius
44. Zhao Jun
45. Johannesson
46. Shulman
47. Hess
48. Onischuk
49. Dominguez
50. Van Wely
51. K Terrieux vs M Vachier-Lagrave            0-1      2011      French Team Championships  R Hess vs M Vachier-Lagrave            0-1      34      2011      Aeroflot Open      E92 King's Indian
52. Cheparinov
53. Sasikiran
54. Gupta
55. Volokitin
56. T Hillarp Persson
57. Robson
58. Bojkov
59. Fressinet
60. Rustam Kasimdzhanov
61. Zhigalko
62. Spraggett
63. Jobava
64. Wang Hao
65. Li Chao
66. Berg
67. Reinderman
68. Fier
69. Acs

Not only are you comparing apples and oranges. You are trying to state with certain fact that apples are better than oranges?!

Gilchrist is a legend wrote on 06/28/11 at 19:15:57:

This is easily checked. 

I ran the stats on the position after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 and 3....Bg7 for games between +2500 rated players since 2001. 

I found ~1500 Grunfelds and ~2000 KIDs. 

So despite the claims that the Grunfeld is more "principled", or that far more GMs play the Grunfeld than the KID, the statistics show a much different picture, with the KID being played on average 4 times for every three the Grunfeld is played. 

Having said all that, I was slightly surprised. I know, the Grunfled has an iffy reputation in some circles. But  as White, I prefer to face the KID. Both openings can be very sharp, but the KID has a far greater chance of a decisive result. 

Gilchrist is a legend wrote on 06/28/11 at 19:15:57:


Maybe that is true for the super-GM tournaments but I´m not sure. It´s easy to name strong GM´s rated above 2600 who played the KID regularly in 2010 and 2011, e.g. Radjabov, Nakamura, Grischuk, Vachier Lagrave, McShane etc. 

The same is obviously true for the Grunfeld. On this level it´s clear that one cannot rely on a small repertoire.

WSS wrote on 06/28/11 at 17:00:16:


Yes, that was a typo--I confused the two. The margin of error to me seems smaller in the King's Indian in that the forced, committal nature of the King's Indian is more tense and difficult to play (at least for me) compared to the Grünfeld.