I am on vacation and had some difficulties going online to check answers to the thread yesterday. When I come back the discussion has exploded with many fntastic suggestions. This forum is (probably) the best chess forum in the world.

To Stigma:
Based on my non-existent theoretical understanding about the Samisch, I would argue that 6.Nge2 looks less flexible compared to 6.Be3 unless we are indending to develop the bishop elsewhere. I could see how the knight might want to go to h3-f2 or h3-g5 etc. How does Barrish and others motivate their choice of 6.Nge2?

To TD:
Cheparinov's book appears to be a very recent publication and based on what I could gather is based on 3.f3, the same recommendation as Barrish. I wonder if anyone has both products and is able to compare them. The My One Hundred Best Games by Dreev is definitely something worth checking out as I like going through games rather than theoretical opening books.

To Paddy:
I that Joe Gallagher's book has an excellent reputation and I know several players who still use his recommendations. I even faced his KID repertoire myself once and my opponent showed great understanding. Petrosian's games is on my to-do list to study and I will order the book that came out recently with his games in the Samisch that was also mentioned a few times in this thread. As for Ward's books unfortunately I have no experience.

To an ordinary chess player:
That is a very nice curated list of players to study and indeed I could do worse than start off by studying the games of these players. As I get into the Samish and perhaps even start adopting an anti-grunfeld move order, it is going to make it more interesting to follow Ding's games. Regarding its theoretical value, it is good to know that it is on par with the classical and as you say it might even work better at the amateur/club level. The fact that it has no drawish lines is a big advantage as it is something that I am lacking in my games and that is preventing me from reaching the next level.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 07/30/20 at 15:50:58:

Sämisch players also should consider 3...c5 (iso d5) as in Dangerous Weapons (Pirc and Modern), chapter 12.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 07/30/20 at 15:50:58:

There is also 5. Bg5 avoiding the KID, which I think has generally been viewed as leading to +=.

Straggler wrote on 07/30/20 at 10:29:35:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nf3 is not right. White should play 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf3 and if black wants a King's Indian then 4...Nbd7 is necessary. That's a big commitment in the Classical, and even if white chooses the Fianchetto at least does not have to worry about the Yugoslav (6...c5) or Panno (6...Nc6).

In Semkov (2009) Kill K.I.D. he advocates the Four Pawns Attack. About black move orders, he says "... Part 6 considers the Classical King's Indian with ...Nd7. I think that White cannot, and should not, avoid this specific type of the KID since it hides no venom.", page 96. Actually he's talking about ...Nbd7 before ...e7-e5. On pages 128-129 he recommends 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 e5 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Nf3 Nfd7 7.g4 ("!") 7...c6 8.b3, but in my opinion 4.Nf3 is even stronger.

Another interesting idea for Saemisch players (not Four Pawns players though) is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 e5 4.d5!? as frequently played against me in blitz by former KID specialist IM Vigorito. Karpov also played this way. Of course the idea is e2-e4, f2-f3, Bc1-e3, etc. Probably black should try 4...Be7 and later aim for ...Be7-g5, but this is not automatic. Saemisch-style against the Old Indian is hardly mentioned in old theory but has become quite topical today.

Similarly, 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 is not right for Saemisch players. Correct is 1.d4 d6 2.e4 ("!" Semkov) 2...Nf6 when Semkov gives 3.Nc3 but Saemisch players should consider 3.f3!? d5!? 4.e5 Nfd7. It's a French of course, but at least black is committed to a Steinitz variation and white gets a Saemisch-like space advantage.

To "an ordinary chess player": you make many very valid points. I would add Polugaevsky and Averbakh to your list of Sämisch players. By the way there is a very thematic win by Averbakh as White vs Petrosian (!) that is in the Yanvarjov book but is missing from Megabase.
I disagree about the Chris Ward book though; I think it's still quite useful, especially as it includes many of his own games and it's useful to see examples of play at a level that is strong but not super-GM. Admittedly he waffles a fair bit and seems less scrupulous and thorough than e.g. Gallagher, but probably he's aiming his books at a lower-level of players.

To "Straggler": I think my 54 games for Petrosian must have been a typo for 44 - sorry.

To "Stigma": you wrote: "But some would argue these books are too old to be relevant today." They might, but I think they would be wrong.

Some openings are heavily dependant on concrete theory and forcing lines. I think that applies less to a (mostly) closed opening like the Sämisch. While it's always nice to have an opening book that is up-to-date, all such books drift out of date very quickly. Therefore for me the bulk of the "added value" of a good opening book (especially if the topic is one of the closed or semi-closed openings), compared to e.g. an unannotated set of games in a database, is the basis of understanding of typical structures, manoeuvres and motifs etc that I can take away from the book and try to apply in my own games, using my own brain (feeble as it is, it's the only one I have).

In his review of the KID books by Smirin and Kotronias, GM David Smerdon makes some related points - see
https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/king-of-kings

It reminds me in some ways of the old adage:
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime!"

I think Larry Kaufman did a book on f3 also. I think I have it somewhere.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 07/30/20 at 03:57:36:

I have My One Hundred Best Games by Dreev, in which there are 10 (!) games with the Saemisch.