Stigma wrote on 08/26/17 at 05:18:27:

I agree that it's straightforward to name some things that are definitely not solid by anyone's definition. Beyond this, I think it's not so straightforward to narrow down what is solid, or to say what is most solid.

Solid can mean

• few complex calculations before the middlegame ("e3 poison," KIA)
• there may be considerable calculation, but opponent will not have an early initiative (1. d4 2.Nf3 3.c4--allows Ragozin and QGA, but no Budapest, Albin, Schara, Benko)
• low likelihood of irrational positions in the middlegame (QGD is solid this way, but not French)
• opponent is unlikely to attack the king early (French is solid this way)
• opponent is unlikely to attack the king ever (Catalan; usually KID; definitely not French)
• you will not be behind in development (Nimzo, Tarrasch)
• opening produces a lot of draws (Berlin)
• pace of play is slow (QGD)
• pawn structure is symmetric and promotes exchanges (Exchange variations)
• pawn structure may not be symmetric, but it still does not feature mutually advancing majorities with competing attacks (Anti-Benoni lines)
• pawn structure is blocked, but there are such majorities (KID)
• you will not be pushed off the board for lack of space (QGD; definitely not KID)
• opening is considered thoroughly respectable and not risky (moderate lines of Sicilian).

In practice, I find it means "without whatever (non-grinding) stuff it is that makes me uncomfortable." I don't think that means the word should be abolished, just that it should be used in a context that makes it clear which of these are meant.

LeeRoth wrote on 08/25/17 at 23:38:18:

I have to ask: Do you mean this literally? I can think of many openings that are less solid than the King's Indian, often with both sides taking considerable risks:

Open Games like the Evans Gambit, The Scotch 4...Nf6 main lines, the Urusov Gambit and the Two Knights with 4.Ng5; the Botvinnik Semi-Slav, the Anti-Moscow Gambit, the Winawer Poisoned Pawn, the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn (and really most of the 6.Bg5 Najdorf lines), the Caro-Kann Advance with Nc3 and g4, The Albin Counter-gambit...

One man's razor is another man's butter knife.  

Forthcoming Chess Series: Redefining the Chess Openings, with titles including: 

- The Rock-Solid King's Indian
- A Tactical QGD Repertoire
- Hacking with the Slav
- The Seniors' Semi-Slav
- Endgame Repertoire for Juniors
- The Aggressive Queen's Indian
- The Positional Benoni
- Attacking the King with the Berlin

It's not the type of the opening in the fight, but the type of fight in the player.

Looks to me like people are using different concepts of solidity, leading to unnecessary debates.

A defence can be non-forcing in the early stages and therefore not so dependent on remembering exact move orders, but still the middlegame positions they lead to can be strategically marginal or dubious. Many would say precisely this is the case with the Modern Averbakh, the ...Nbd7 King's Indian, etc.

As far as the King's Indian as a whole goes, in most lines Black can be assured of getting his kingside pieces out and getting castled before things start to heat up. Below a certain level (1800 perhaps?) that's actually enough to make it a solid defence in any sense of the word. Weaker White players won't know how to make Black suffer for his positionally risky position.

Quote:

I've been playing more or less exactly this, and having lots of fun!

@Monocle:
Have a look at how GM Zdenko Kozul plays these lines. He often goes for a setup with Nbd7 or Na6 and then c6, or vice versa. His idea is to threaten(!) to take on d4, which is why White usually goes d4-d5 (there are lines where White keeps the tension, but normally he closes the centre or takes on e5)
Then Black goes c6-c5 and we have a czech-benoni kind of structure which is surprisingly hard to break down and strategically difficult.

@Eric: I would probably rate the Grünfeld, the Chigorin, the Benoni and maybe also the Benko as sharp (and obviously the KID Mar del Plata lines). But yeah, totally depends what solid means for you.

I really like Michael Aytons take on this thing! Solid means reliable. Does not seem to be refuted in 10 years. 

The question made by Monocle seemed to me like he needed a reliable, likely-to-get (not like the modern Benoni f.e. which is only one (maybe two) particular move-orders) and not overly sharp variation. To my eyes, the old KID lines with the attempt to get the c5-d6-e5 vs c4-d5-e4 structure are all that. But that is just my opinion and everybody should have their own on that. Well, not everybody has to, obviously.

PS: It's totally alright to not consider these things solid

If the King's Indian or Modern/Averbakh is solid, what's a fluid or sharp defense to 1.d4?  Of course there are a few lines where queens can come off and the structure is defined early, but only if White lacks ambition.

We go around and around with this question here.  What does solid mean?  Does it mean playing the same 5-8 opening moves and getting castled against just about everything (such as in the Modern or King's Indian), but then having many different ways to strike at the center with little space, while risking getting pushed off of the board or having the position open rapidly?

sol·id
ˈsäləd
adjective
1.
firm and stable in shape; not liquid or fluid.

To me, solid means having a fairly well-defined central structure and decent amount of space.  That means certain lines of the Slav (4...a6 for instance), the Queen's Gambit Declined, the Czech Benoni, the Stonewall Dutch, etc.  Not the King's Indian, Modern, or Pirc.  But maybe that's just me.

I meant the Averbakh with 1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. e4 e5 which leads to a queen trade after de de. 
But in general, the Nd7 KID lines can be employed in various move-orders, f.e. 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 e5 which can also lead to a queen trade. That and also the current fashion which does not concentrate on these lines would fulfill the "low-theory" part. If you change the move orders, you will not have opponents who slaughter you in the opening because of the move order. 

If I may quote from Emmanuel Neimann from the (nice btw) book "The fianchetto solution" (regarding the Averbakh):

"In my opinion, this is the safest answer to 1.d4 - apart from the King's Indian."

I second that. The fianchetto keeps your king very safe. Consider games in the Nimzo-Indian f.e., where you have to concentrate your forces on the queenside to win a pawn there, while White marches forward with his pawns.
You will not often get mated in the KID. It may be sharp, but usually you are the one attacking the opponents king, not the other way round.

I also think that it is nice to keep a lot of pieces on the board, which helps outplaying the other guy. An opening like the QGD can be "sharp" in a sense that you may end up with an IQP and have to find certain dynamic moves to keep the game balanced and not end up in a nice technical position for White. 
In the KID, you can rely on that "certain uncertainness" that White has with his small plus. Even if you play second rate moves or play a bit passive, there is still this dynamic potential that does not go away so easily.

In the end, it matters most what you feel comfortable with. But I hope I have clarified my thoughts and maybe help you a bit