Seeley wrote on 10/26/20 at 02:38:44:

I used to think there was a difference berween defining a word and redefining a word. I've gradually and reluctantly changed my mind. Winchester (2003) The Meaning of Everything was interesting, "referring to the context and seeing what you think would make sense" is exactly how dictionaries are written.

Seeley wrote on 10/25/20 at 22:43:49:

Don't understimate transpo power. 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 e6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.e5 Nfd7 6.f4 is a French just fine.
(Of course this doesn't affect what you write by any means)

The best thing I can say about that site is that we can't accuse the owner of dishonesty. It's low quality is crystal clear for anyone who takes a look at it for more than a minute.
From the site:

"This is a list of all the chess openings that start with the move 1. e4."
Good to learn that 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 d3 does not belong to the Morra Gambit, while unlike the Najdorf, the Kan and the sophisticated Panteldakis Countergambit the Paulsen-Taimanov Defense (2...Nc6 and 4...e6) is not an opening worth mentioning.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 10/26/20 at 01:13:40:
But that isn't what 'transpose' means.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 10/26/20 at 01:13:40:
Agreed, but neither of these is a transposition. If you redefine words to mean whatever you'd like them to mean, by referring to the context and seeing what you think would make sense, then you're changing what was written in the first place.

That site certainly offers some idiosyncratic insights. I was particularly intrigued by: 'Many times a Caro-Kann opening can transpose into a french defense'. (I can't think of a single instance where this is true, nor does it even seem plausible with a pawn already on c6). And 'If the Caro-Kann does not follow the main lines it usually takes on a french defense so I would recommend studying up on the french defense if you want to play the Caro-Kann.' (So why bother with the Caro-Kann at all if you're going to have to learn the French in order to play it?) I don't think I'm going to be forking out for my $7-a-month subscription to find the answer.

Regarding that page at thechesswebsite.com, I'm not exactly surprised to see that several of the "Famous Games using the Kings Indian Defense" aren't actually KIDs.

Tbh, the one thing I like about the KID from both sides is that the game is never over until it is over.

I think the most troubling lines as black are fianchetto line and Samisch because they are most likely to be White wins or draws but having played both sides of nearly every KID variation over the years... I find the Makaganow to be one of the less toothless lines.

To give an example of KID's "sink or swim" nature, I remember beating some GMs with KID big attack, yet lost to 2100 and 2200 via boa constrictor style positional squeeze due to messing up the opening. Likewise, gaining 50+ points in few months, then losing almost 100 the next year. All with KID in my repertoire. Those kind of extremes are what I notice when you only play the KID and nothing else vs. 1. d4. If you just want the KID surprise weapon though, that would help prevent running into preparation.

That might explain why so few GMs play the KID in every game. They cannot afford to lose so many points even if sometimes they might gain a lot of points in return. I think that the only ones that I remember recently were Joe Gallagher and Teimur Radjabow. Even Radjabow does not play KID every game. Nakamura certainly does not play the KID every game although he is one of the elite KID players now.

Short story is that from experience I feel that if you want to play KID against 2400+, you must know not only theory but have good feeling for the positions. Even so, ending up either completely lost or positionally tortured is very real and possible in every game. 

You need to be resourceful and pull rabbits out of hats on a regular basis. I remember reading Smirin's KID book from Quality Chess. One thing I remember was that Black often is faced with situations where he must find good moves just to survive, and small slips can end up in positional torture. Obviously the average player is not a 2600+ GM like Smirin, so this is not easy.

The Makogonow is already a pain. The Gligoric System is also a pain, and in the Mar del Plata if you cannot mate, often your position is in deep trouble.

As if this were not enough, the Fianchetto is pure torture. I used to play Gallagher's variation with ...a6 and lunge with ...e5. Either I was dead lost or managed to overwhelm White with some attack. But the Fianchetto is not fun to play as Black. I would say at least five times more annoying than facing Makogonow. 

It is no surprise that Awrukh recommends the Fianchetto for White in both 2010 and 2019 volumes of GM Repertoire. I think that Roïz has a Modern Chess databank on Fianchetto KID for White coming out soon. So no doubt more White players will decide to play the Fianchetto against KID. 

Overall, playing KID you experience high highs (brilliant attacking wins) and low lows (horrific positional torture). And especially hard to play this at 2400+ opposition on a regular basis, compared to easier to grasp openings like Slaw, QGD, QGA or even Grünfeld. In other words, like playing for big money at blackjack. But if you like that lifestyle, KID would be good for you.