Follow the video a bit more and Gusti - while explaining his idea 8.Ng5 - names the concrete problem White has in the position Eric quoted. Black could reach the exact same position after 14.e3 with the white knight either on e1 or g5. Gusti now points out, that with the n on e1 (restricting the movement of the f1 rook, thus leading to a pin of the knight) 14...Bh3 15.Ng2 e5! is absolutely fine for Black and one has to agree. So, 8.Ng5 among other things was played to avoid this.

Avrukh, who doesn't give 9...Q:b3 as Balck's main try btw, very lazily cites the only played game so far between two rather weak players with 9.Qb3 Qb6 10.cd Qxb3 11.axb3 cd 12.Nxd5 Nc6, where 12...N:d5 is indeed very clearly indicated by computer and 12...Nc6 immediately a clear advantage for White. So not hard to notice. Indeed not very convincing. And I've bought the book btw.

Gusti's video is interesting and to be recommended for many aspects, not just opening.

RdC wrote on 05/18/18 at 16:33:16:


You're making generalizations, but the actual position in question is this one (maybe White's last move is not forced):



Perhaps Black doesn't have great winning chances, I'll give you that, but I have a hard time seeing any shred of an advantage for White given the poor placement of his pieces, and frankly if I had to choose I'd probably rather take Black.  I might overvalue harmonious piece play and undervalue extra pawns, I don't know, but...I do think that I'd rather have Black here.  Especially if I were up against a much higher-rated opponent.  In fact if I had White in that position against a much higher-rated player, I'd be worried that Black's piece activity would cause me too much problems and I'd risk losing, whereas I don't think that Black is risking much at all.   

In other words, against someone clearly stronger than myself, I'd be worried that if I had the white pieces I might lose, but if I had the Black pieces I'd be pretty confident of a draw.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 05/18/18 at 02:02:24:

I'm not sure what point you're making.

I wonder how much forethought was involved when IM Erling Mortensen played that pawn sac in the early '90s ...

RdC wrote on 05/17/18 at 22:40:33:

Did you watch Gustafsson's video? The whole point is that Black gets activity and good compensation for the pawn if White grabs it, enough that it's not a good try for a White advantage. I haven't done any analysis myself, but my feeling when watching was I'd rather be Black.

It's mysterious, I agree. It could be a matter of people trusting theory, or perhaps once someone sets out to play the KID they don't want to play something like a Schlecter Slav.

I understand the idea, but really, reacting with ...d5 has never been taken seriously before?  That seems like the most natural move in the position, i.e. White plays an undeveloping move to prepare e2-e4, so Black might as well move the d-pawn again to prevent it.  Once the pawn is on d5 the knight certainly wants to be back on f3 (or somewhere that it could apply pressure to d5), which means that Black loses one tempo but White loses two.  

Of course I'm oversimplifying, I just find it hard to believe that 8...d5 was dismissed or overlooked for so long, it's the most natural move on the board.     

It's a topic for another thread, but I liked the Geller Gambit idea that Flores punted against Jan, I'll have to look into that as well.

Well, 8. Ne1 is an old book move which has been given as leading to an edge for White before (but none of the old books I'm aware of addressed 8...d5).

I understand that he plays corr. rather than OTB.
He writes very good stuff - high quality. 

And frankly, who on earth are you, Random Anon Guy on Internet? Are you any good? Here - no great shakes, but FM, and I learn plenty from the Ntirlis QC books.

General rule - don't be an @rsehole, and things are better in the world.

Just to proceed the discussion in the Grunfeld Forum:

Avrukh is writing great books and has many new ideas. But I never got the Quality Chess marketing strategy of claiming that White is better everywhere, this time explicitly claimed e.g. by Ntirlis in a video overview of the book. Really guys? This obvious nonsense always leaves me speachess...

In a recent video (to be found here:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnWEVWf2Q_Q) Jan Gustafsson is talking about the opening stage of his games at the Thailand Open.

As he reveals he did some specific preparation and followed the Avrukh lines against the King's Indian and got nothing twice (game number 2 and 4). He is showing some nice and not so hard to find ideas where Black is perfectly alright. In game number 4 he disliked Avrukhs recommendation so much (he shows why, Black getting fantastic compensation for a pawn) in order to deviate from Avrukh quite early on.

Maybe I am too old fashioned, but for me this hyperbole marketing is really taking away a lot from otherwise very good books. It simply leaves me in a state of mind where I do not trust Avrukh on anything - what a pity!