Gilchrist is a legend wrote on 09/17/11 at 19:05:39:

To me that is more of a benefit of playing the KID. It makes it much easier for me to play against it with white.

Every time I am posed grave problems in the opening, I think of going back to the Queen's Gambit Declined. The problem is checkmating your opponents is too addictive.

Gramsci, I hope more players take your enlightened view!

As a correspondence player I love the white side of the Semi-slav. As an OTB player, it's a mess.

Don't you feel the semi slav gives you a lot of chances to play for the full point. It seems to me that is easier to understand and the big guys are playing it and it gives us a good amount of fresh theory!

Your explanation makes a lot of sense Ludde. 9.b4 does seem to forestall most of Black's ideas of mating on the kingside, but as Bryan Paulsen has stated this isn't a theoretical problem. 

8...Nb8 is the other option, but this has been considered bad for Black by theory, possibly because the knight still lacks a good square in the longer term.

TN wrote on 09/12/11 at 20:23:16:

Logically there must be some thruth in your analysis (e7 is a pretty bad square and it gives white d4-d5 with tempo). On the other hand one could argue that on e7 the knight is far more likely to get involved in activities on the kingside, and white is not allowed to keep his perfect centre (c4-d4-e4) but has to commit which makes blacks planning easier. I seriously doubt there is a definite "truth" available regarding if Nc6 is blacks best move, but I remember Markovich in some other thread claiming that it is a shame to play the KID and then not enter the rich and complex lines of the Mar del Plata when given the opportunity. I would not go as far as calling it shameful, but I do agree that those lines are among the most appealing aspects of the KID. White might be better, but he is under constant threat of a devastating attack.

What about the Grünfeld? Black can easily get a good game with initiative due to the high amount of dynamism in Black's position.

Especially on this:

TN wrote on 09/12/11 at 17:58:29:


I have never had many problems fighting for the initiative against 1.d4. And there are still a few lines I never tried. One day I'll look at 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3 Ne4 7.Qc2 c5 and 7...Nc6 for instance.

I have considered stopping playing the King's Indian, and I did stop playing it a few years ago . The positions were too committal for me, especially the very sharp and tense lines such as Mar del Plata, as well as the positional lines, which usually cause me to end up in positionally lost endgames. I play the Grünfeld now.

I have stopped 3 or 4 times over 10 years. It is a complete coincidence, but I start playing it again every time a new book comes out...

I enjoy playing the KID, but sometimes I think it is a lot of theory to play well, or you have to be "smarter" than the other player because you begin the game with a lack of space. You are always walking a very narrow road between risk and defeat or glory. Playing the slav is less theory, the draw is always very near but I am afraid a bit boring  . What do you think?