Latest Updates:
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Categorising the KID (Read 6056 times)
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2518
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Categorising the KID
Reply #10 - 01/31/14 at 19:49:43
Post Tools
If we're going to get all historical, I'd think that the roots of the King's Indian Defense are in the Old Indian Defense, and even in things like Philidor's Defense.  My System covers a lot of Philidor-like positions that are also very King's Indian-like, if White advances c2-c4. 

I'm no historian, but I'm inclined to think that the genesis of the King's Indian Defense lies in those Philidor lines (or other Open Games) where Black play ...exd4 and White recaptures with a piece, later advancing his pawn to c4.  Black would often re-route his King's Bishop to the a1-h8 diaganol, plant knights on c5 and e5, advance ...a7-a5, etc.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10620
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Categorising the KID
Reply #9 - 01/31/14 at 13:05:31
Post Tools
MartinC wrote on 01/31/14 at 08:59:37:
Well then exd4 quite quickly I think?

Not necessarily. Compare Donner-Gligoric, Zonal Bad Pyrmont 1951.

MartinC wrote on 01/31/14 at 08:59:37:
Very different pawn structures/ideas from the Nc6 stuff at least.

Not necessarily either. If Black tried to maintain the tension with ...Re8 the usual reply was (is?) d4-d5 arguing that Re8 is misplaced in the forthcoming race, eg 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 Nbd7 7.O-O e5 8.Re1 c6 9.Bf1 a5 10.Rb1 and Re8 11.d5 c5 was much more popular than 10...exd4.
Euwe explained that after ...exd4 the burden was on Black to prove sufficiently active piece play. A sample line that might be attractive is 9...a5 10.Rb1 Ng4 11.h3 exd4 12.Nxd4 Qb6 13.Qxg4 Bxd4. Because of 10.Rb1 Black threatens to win a piece.
Another attempt is 9...a6, arguing that 10.d5 c5 wins a tempo. The pawn on c5 is an important difference of course, but the general idea for Black remains to mate White.
There is some uncharted territory left here, mainly because the pawn race after 6...Nc6 7.d5 Ne7 is so popular.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2017
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: Categorising the KID
Reply #8 - 01/31/14 at 08:59:37
Post Tools
Well then exd4 quite quickly I think? Very different pawn structures/ideas from the Nc6 stuff at least.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10620
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Categorising the KID
Reply #7 - 01/30/14 at 21:50:50
Post Tools
Apparently it has been forgotten that the original KID (including the Classical) involved ...Nbd7 rather than ...exd4.  Wink
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2017
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: Categorising the KID
Reply #6 - 01/30/14 at 14:56:10
Post Tools
Musn't forget that the original classical KID involved exd4 and not Nc6 Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ludde
Full Member
***
Offline


So much theory..so little
time

Posts: 155
Location: Stockholm
Joined: 10/16/09
Gender: Male
Re: Categorising the KID
Reply #5 - 01/30/14 at 12:06:23
Post Tools
I think that in all openings you gain something and give up something else. In the Nimzo you (potentially) give up the pair of bishops, in the Grünfeld you give the opponent a big centre, and volontarily exchanges your d-pawn for the opponents c-pawn etc. This is definitely the case in the KID classical variation - you give up space and the g7-bishop is very much hemmed in by the pawn-chain, at least initially - just as  Ametanoitos states. Still in return you get speedy development, and in the classical I think that the very fact that white has committed to King-side castling is something you "gain" in return for placing yet another piece (Ne7) badly. What I mean by this is that White has placed his king on the part of the board where black has potential to become the stronger side. This is dangerous with a fixed central pawn-structure, which clearly has been proven in many games Smiley.
What I mean is that it is maybe a bit too simplistic to claim that the KID is an anti-positional opening. Black clearly accepts some positional deficiencies in his position in return for other values. If these are sufficient to maintain the balance is a difficult question (I, for one, defenitely don't know), but I think Eric is close to the truth when he talks about dynamics as a factor. Dynamic aspects are fluctual in nature, and puts a burden on black to quickly create counterplay. Whites advantages, in particular the space, is a static advantage that will remain a factor for a long time, and black must use whatever short-term opportunities available to turn the space advantage into over-extension, or get some other form of compensation. This means that there is a requirement on black to play energetically, and this might be the problem. When playing the KID it is often not enough to make "reasonable" moves to get a decent position and this makes the opening difficult to play (well).
If the KID is anti-positional, but saved by the "Jugoslav" regrouping of pieces (wasn't Najdorf involved?) - is there not a problem in our understanding of positional/anti-positional?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2518
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Categorising the KID
Reply #4 - 01/30/14 at 11:38:31
Post Tools
I think it's clear that the King's Indian is a very dynamic opening.  He concedes White a static advantage: space, sometimes tons of space.  He must either find dynamic resources for counterplay or be squeezed to death. 

When the center becomes closed yes, I agree there are long-term plans for both sides.  And no, I don't think that the King's Indian as a whole is one-dimensional in the sense of Kingside Attack vs. Queenside Attack, but it is one-dimensional in the sense that if he doesn't find counterplay against White's big center, he will end up much worse.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ametanoitos
God Member
*****
Offline


The road to success is
under construction

Posts: 1427
Location: Patras
Joined: 01/04/05
Re: Categorising the KID
Reply #3 - 01/30/14 at 07:24:43
Post Tools
If you want to categorise an opening take a look at its "Classical Variation". All the lines that are called like that represent the most logical way to play for both sides. If we agree on that, looking at the Classical Variation of the KID (2 knights out and bishop at e2 and castle for White) we can see that Black is certainly playing anti-positional chess, giving space to White and having a really bad bishop at g7. There is a race and Black is far behind, but he is "saved" by the fact that he is attacking the king and that the yugoslavians discovered a nice way to regroup Black's pieces so that they can win some time defending while organising their own attack.

This is not my opinion by the way. Reading Golubev's excellent "Understanding the KID" (one of the few books that while being old are still quite usefull and relevant) will lead you to the same conclusions.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4713
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Categorising the KID
Reply #2 - 01/29/14 at 20:09:55
Post Tools
One thing I'm reminded of in this vein is Carsten Hansen being aghast at finding the KID advocated in a "positional repertoire" book.  ("For its part, the King’s Indian is a respectable opening, but it most certainly is not positional. In fact, it is difficult to suggest a major opening for Black against 1 d4 that is less positional than the King’s Indian.")
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Fllg
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 646
Joined: 05/30/09
Gender: Male
Re: Categorising the KID
Reply #1 - 01/29/14 at 19:09:50
Post Tools
Imho, the KID is certainly not one-dimensional. This is perhaps only the case if you look at lines like 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 where Black indeed mostly plays only for one aim: mating White´s king.

But if White goes for example for the Fianchetto Variation an attack on the kingside will be rarely seen, at least with a pawn storm.

One thing Black should always do in the KID is playing active. Since Black lacks space in most lines he has to look for ways to counter this disadvantage, else he will be strangled.

So I believe one has to be fairly versatile to be able to play this defence well.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
snakebite
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 82
Joined: 01/25/06
Categorising the KID
01/29/14 at 18:33:36
Post Tools
What sort of opening is the KID? Some people seem to think it is very one dimensional leading to a kingside versus queenside race and purely tactical chances versus the white king.

Others say it is an opening ideal for strategic play as there are many long term plans for both sides to choose from.

I can appreciate the tactical potential, but do wonder if there are deep positional themes running underneath these tactics.

Thoughts?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo