ErictheRed wrote on 07/01/11 at 17:57:38:


If the Grünfeld is unique in this manner then that would mean that any other defence will function as a surprise opening, or at least cause the opponent to reconsider his strategy against that particular opening? It seems Grünfeld could be a mix of light and dark square defence. If in addition to Grünfeld, going for sharp play I would play King's Indian or Semi-Slav. Solid I would choose Slav or Nimzo/QID.

I have a question, if anyone could answer that would be great. If you're a Grunfeld player and are looking for a 2nd defence against 1.d4, would the KID be a good choice? Or would you be better off having something like the Semi-slav as a backup?

I realise that it depends a lot on your own style and preference, but I'm concerned that having both defences against d4 starting with 1.. Nf6 might make it easier for an opponent to prepare against.

ErictheRed wrote on 07/01/11 at 01:43:28:


My memory has tricked me before, but I think I have seen this line covered here at Chesspub. Don't remember in what update, though.

Quote:


You may look into:
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cd5 Nd5 5.e4 Nc3 6.bc3 Bg7 7.Bg5 !?

Which is still quite rare but some pretty strong GM's were victims of it (Sasikrian, Negi, Svidler, Sutovsky all against lower rated opponents). It's quite annoying to meet and it's esialy to go wrong if you hadn't seen it before.

I'm going to guess that some other GM writing a repertoire book might well have chosen differently.

Regarding Black playing for a win, I was reminded above all of this line:  1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 c6 4. Bg2 d5 5. cd cd 6. Nf3 Bg7 7. Ne5 0-0 8. Nc3 e6 9. 0-0 Nfd7 10. Nxd7.

I've always had great respect for the Grunfeld. It's usually quite strong players who choose this opening who know exactly what they're doing.

And I must admit I'm still not 100% sure what to play with white against the Grunfeld. My ideal would be a good sideline where I get good positions and black is out of their book + comfort zone, but I haven't found such a line yet and am not even sure it exists.

The KID tends to lead to decisive results more often than Grunfelds do, but the overall statistics for the two openings are similar. This goes hand-in-hand with the reputation of each opening. Both openings score better for white than other variations, and both have lower draw odds than other openings. 

So, for players who like the double-edged nature of Indian-style defenses, the KID would seem to be the more "natural" choice. However, both openings accomplish the same basic goal of reaching an unbalanced position. The Grunfeld is perhaps slightly less dynamic than the KID, but it is also slightly more solid, as evinced by the higher draw odds.

For me, the difference between the two really comes down to two basic considerations: the relative safety of the Grunfeld compared to the KID and the thematic counterattacks that KID players usually live for which gives black better winning chances at the cost of increased losing chances.

Trw, my comment was aimed at anyone who continues to argue about facts after the facts have been established. The KID is played more often at the GM level. No matter how "recently" is defined, in the last decade, last five years, or last year, the KID is played more often by GMs. Even trying to redefine what a GM is doesn't change that fact.