My favorite variation of the King's Indian Defense is the Panno.
Beating 1. d4 - Any recommendations?
Sort:
People who play the French will feel at home in the QGD, sure.
I used to play the QGA but recently I switched to the tarrasch / semi tarrasch. So far I'm pretty happy with the tarrasch, players seem to not know how to respond to it, and it's not commonly played. People avoid it cuz they don't like IQP positions but the opening is completely legitimate and puts alot of pressure on white.
QGA is nice if you want a viable attacking opening that takes control of the game early, minimizing the theory you must learn.
Slav gambits / benko gambit are also very good attacking options... though there are more ways of white avoiding these lines so you'll need to learn more theory. Slav gambits are considered completely solid at the GM level though.
Semi-slav is cool but it's too much theory and too common for my tastes.
English defense is also a good attacking alternative to the NID, though you should pair it with the QID and the french and enter it via 1... e6. Really this only makes sense if you play the french vs 1. e4, but if you do it's a great line.
KID / NID are too typical / predictable to be a good choice at club level, plus the KID is very unforgiving and NID is too gigantic.
Grunfeld is also not recommended at lower levels for the same reasons - unforgiving / gigantic amount of theory required.
Benoni is generally just not hard to play against and you should find something else. Dutch is also pretty easy to rip apart.
The black lion defense also looks interesting, I haven't played it myself but winrates are very good and some people swear by it.
ibrust wrote:
I used to play the QGA but recently I switched to the tarrasch / semi tarrasch. So far I'm pretty happy with the tarrasch, players seem to not know how to respond to it, and it's not commonly played. People avoid it cuz they don't like IQP positions but the opening is completely legitimate and puts alot of pressure on white.
++ Personally not a Tarrasch fan as Black. Perfectly reputable, but the Tarrasch isn't hard to book against if your opponent knows it's coming, and White very often gets to choose the variation and some of them aren't fun to play against.
QGA is nice if you want a viable attacking opening that takes control of the game early, minimizing the theory you must learn.
++ It works practically but from a principled perspective it's terrible. It's up there with the Caro-Kann and Grunfeld for me on the 'why does it work?' scale. That being said the mainline isn't fun for Black at all, White just gets normal classical QGD stuff without having to worry as much about key tension breaks in the center.
Slav gambits / benko gambit are also very good attacking options... though there are more ways of white avoiding these lines so you'll need to learn more theory. Slav gambits are considered completely solid at the GM level though.
++ I'm assuming by Slav gambits you mean the normal Slav lines... if not, then ignore this. Slav is fun, one of my favorite Black defenses against d4. Love the aggression, love the simplicity, it feels like a Sicilian merged with a QGA in the best way possible.
Benko Gambit... I actively dislike as Black. White has far too much play in anything but the Fully-Accepted, and even there I much prefer White's positions. I much prefer the Blumenfeld Countergambit. Simple, relatively sound, incredible fun, easy to add to a c5-Nimzo/Benoni repertoire, all while being incredibly aggressive and counterattacking, what's not to love?
Semi-slav is cool but it's too much theory and too common for my tastes.
++ Which one? I've literally never managed to get someone to play a Meran as either side, but I play a crap ton of Botvinniks (as White. Over my dead body will I allow a Botvinnik, I'll take on c4 on MY terms, thank you very much). If the Slav is the Sicilian QGA, then the Semi-Slav is the Ruy Lopez QGA, the simple complexity, the positional tactics, the minefield of thinly-veiled aggression from both sides. Love it to death. Theory is a valid friction point, but if you can do Tarrasch you can do Semi-Slav.
English defense is also a good attacking alternative to the NID, though you should pair it with the QID and the french and enter it via 1... e6. Really this only makes sense if you play the french vs 1. e4, but if you do it's a great line.
++ English is fine. That being said, it's just a b6-NID/QID repertoire with way more steps and things to know. Like, an insane amount more. Also, yeah, having to play the French is a friction point, but not insurmountable, as one could run a reasonable Fort Knox/Bd6-Ne7 Exchange/Wade Advance repertoire up to a certain point at the club level alongside their regular repertoire, as those play so intuitively from the Black side.
KID / NID are too typical / predictable to be a good choice at club level, plus the KID is very unforgiving and NID is too gigantic.
++ KID is pretty unforgiving, but avoid the Mar del Plata and you have counterplay in every other variation. It isn't personally my favorite, I tend to like keeping my options open, but you really can't do that in the KID, you usually only have one viable option according to the engine, and that just isn't my style. That being said, it isn't too bad, and it is perfectly sound and for French players this should be a real consideration.
Calling NID gigantic is technically correct but also blatantly false. As White, you pick one of 5 lines and only learn that line's 5 responses. As Black, you learn one of 5 responses for each of the 5 lines. Sure, there are 25 rich, deep lines to study, but you can completely ignore 20 of them, just like in any opening. Alternatively, you can learn 0 and play it based on feel, which also works due to how solid and flexible the opening, something that very very few openings accomplish. Also, the BID is piss-easy to play, super flexible, and ultra-solid, all while covering both good anti-nimzos.
Grunfeld is also not recommended at lower levels for the same reasons - unforgiving / gigantic amount of theory required.
++ I kind of agree, but not fully. There's a decent amount to learn, and it also requires a very specific type of player. I took to it like a duck to water, but then again I'm a very unconventional player. However, the fact that Black has such a good setup so early on means that White either settles for a less-than-perfect setup which is exploitable longterm or tries to push his luck in the Russian or Exchange. Anything goes in the Russian, good luck prepping it, but the Exchange is usually quite tame and Black always has the killswitch of trading everything down to a drawn endgame.
Benoni is generally just not hard to play against and you should find something else.
++ Disagree. Benoni is as good as the KID, both of which are only slightly worse than the Grunfeld. Ironically, I'd say this pairs extremely well with the Caro-Kann. Both play in a very anti-principled manner to achieve a cramped but rock-solid position that can wreak havoc if it survives the intense middlegames which will inevitably arise. Philidor players also rejoice.
Dutch is also pretty easy to rip apart.
++ Full disclosure that I literally have no clue about anything pertaining to the Leningrad, I've never played either side of it and I haven't looked into it at all, and nobody talks about it, so this segment will be exclusively about the e6 Dutch.
It may be sound, but it's hanging by a thread if it is. I score well against it, GMs don't play it, it scores really poorly, engines don't really like it, but there are a few people who swear by it and it doesn't have glaring weaknesses, it just also doesn't have any strengths, like at all.
The black lion defense also looks interesting, I haven't played it myself but winrates are very good and some people swear by it.
++ I'm assuming you mean 1... d6 2. e4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nbd7? It's okay. If you can manage the incredibly limited space you have well enough, I might even call it sound. Combine it with the Rat Defense with 1... d6 2. d4 e5 (offering a very advantageous queen trade or a much better KID structure) and you have one FUNKY FRESH repertoire. That being said, the 2. Nf3 3. c4 players will be able to avoid both of those, so add Tiger's Modern (a6 d6 g6 Bg7 b5 Bb7 being the defining structure, with c5, e5, d5, and f5 all as viable pawn breaks depending on what White does, flexibility is the name of the game here) to your repertoire for a completely legitimate repertoire somehow featuring three animal-themed openings that hardly anyone plays. That being said, play this repertoire at tournaments and you may just find out why hardly anyone plays these.
Not mentioned above are the Modern (which is good if you like flexibility and hate theory), the Budapest, Chigorin, and Baltic, (which are all unsound, but perhaps playable below 2000 with some good fundamentals and prep), and the big one:
The QGD (Fantastic, I recommend a repertoire like so: 3. Nf3 Bb4+ is really good, there's no known theory after 4. Nbd2 dxc4 but Black does really well, you transpose to the Ragozin after 4. Nc3 Nf6 and the Ragozin is really really good, and after 4. Bd2 Be7 5. Nc3 Nf6 the game will either transpose to a Classical QGD or a Harrwitz which are both good for Black. Play the Ragozin with 3. Nc3 Bb4, and play the Catalan with 3. g3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 Be7 5. Bg2 Nf6 6. Nf3)
The Classical QGD lines are fantastic, the Lasker, the Tartakower, the Mainline Orthodox, the Rubinstein, the Mainline Neo-Orthodox, the Cambridge Springs, et cetera ad infinitum.
The Ragozin is phenomenal, as I mentioned above.
The Vienna is great, albeit very sharp in many variations and it requires cooperation from White.
And I think that's all of them!
It sounds like about everything.
Ethan_Brollier wrote:
ibrust wrote:
...
Not mentioned above are the Modern (which is good if you like flexibility and hate theory), the Budapest, Chigorin, and Baltic, (which are all unsound, but perhaps playable below 2000 with some good fundamentals and prep), and the big one:
The QGD (Fantastic, I recommend a repertoire like so: 3. Nf3 Bb4+ is really good, there's no known theory after 4. Nbd2 dxc4 but Black does really well, you transpose to the Ragozin after 4. Nc3 Nf6 and the Ragozin is really really good, and after 4. Bd2 Be7 5. Nc3 Nf6 the game will either transpose to a Classical QGD or a Harrwitz which are both good for Black. Play the Ragozin with 3. Nc3 Bb4, and play the Catalan with 3. g3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 Be7 5. Bg2 Nf6 6. Nf3)
The Classical QGD lines are fantastic, the Lasker, the Tartakower, the Mainline Orthodox, the Rubinstein, the Mainline Neo-Orthodox, the Cambridge Springs, et cetera ad infinitum.
The Ragozin is phenomenal, as I mentioned above.
The Vienna is great, albeit very sharp in many variations and it requires cooperation from White.
And I think that's all of them!
QGD is a great opening but not really an attacking opening. I prefer attacking chess in general, but especially at the club level. But my biggest issue with the QGD is literally everyone plays it. I think it's like half of 1. d4 games result in a QGD, which is ridiculous. If you're looking for a way to make your opponent the least surprised possible the QGD is the way to do it.
With the variant of the English defense I'm talking about - where you combine it with the french and the QID - you're only playing it against the d4 / c4 / Nc3 setup, you're not playing the entire english defense here. The English defense against this setup is much more restrictive of whites options than the NID, because you're applying more early pressure on the e4 square and play immediately centers around struggling for control of e4.
You're offbase in your analysis of the size of the NID - it's not just the first 4 moves that branch out (and there are actually 8 popular variants on move 4, not 5), this branching continues throughout the lines. Throughout most of the lines Qc2, Qb3, or a3 are possible, which can be mixed in at different times... and white doesn't immediately strive to play e4, so the position is less forcing. White can also delay e3, which means Bg5 is still an option. The NID is a gigantic opening, white can do pretty much anything in these lines. If you play the NID at club level you'll end up forced to play it intuitively. It's a good position but it's just not easy to move beyond intuitive play to developing mastery, which becomes a necessary step at some point... it's also very common, so you can expect a well prepared opponent. At club level there are just better alternatives that are both smaller and will throw off the opponent / secure an advantage more reliably. If you're looking to become a master then sure, by all means play the NID.
When we talk about gambits the winrates at various levels have to be part of the conversation... bottom line is in the benko gambit black actually has a positive winrate, this is true in both partially and fully accepted lines, this remains true even into high elo at rapid time controls... in contrast the blumenfeld countergambit has a pretty bad winrate which gets worse as elo increases and is worse in rapid. And the benko gambit is more respected at GM level. And there are a few different ways you can play the benko.
My money goes on the benko but you're free to disagree and play the blumenfeld.
"QGA - It works practically but from a principled perspective it's terrible ... the mainline isn't fun for Black at all, White just gets normal classical QGD stuff without having to worry as much about key tension breaks in the center."
Name any1. d4 defense and you're making some kind of concession. QGD? You've locked the lightsquare bishop in. Slav / semi-slav? You've made a concession already in playing c3 > c4. KID? You've ceded the center. What about NID? Well you can't always reach the NID, people can play the anti-nimzo and now you're in a QID, then they play the petrosian variation and you have issues.
If this were still the 1800s where virtually everyone played the QGD and adhered strictly to 'classical chess principels' your argument would be the widely accepted argument. In modern times... we've moved way beyond this kind of thinking. For starters, the QGD is completely predictable, as I mentioned earlier. So that right there is just a fatal flaw as far as I'm concerned. If you play the QGD you can be forced into the exchange variation where white has a beautiful position... you're essentially clinging to a 4/100ths of a pawn difference according to the engine... meanwhile there's almost nothing you can do to avoid the main lines, it's a very restrictive opening and extremely theoretical out to move 40. Black scores very poorly here in practice.
Now, if I'm playing a highly theoretical position like the QGD exchange, but I know the lines and my opponent probably doesn't know them as well... that's an entirely different matter. That's a line I can focus on and study, and just out theorize the opponent in. Which is more what happens with the QGA mainline position. And when I played the QGA I only played the mainline position in response to 3. Nf3, against 3. e3 there are other things you can do.
Overall though I'm very averse to the idealism that so many players seem to be prone to - whether it be engine idealism, or idealizing GM-level play, or idealizing principles... I care much more about playing the mental game of chess with the opponent and winning on that level. So I prefer to be much more practical toward that end - the QGA allows you to just focus on a very tight repertoire against 1. d4, the ball is in your court. Your opponent might get the QGA in 5% of games or so.
And in practice the QGA scores quite well compared with other d4 openings.
Same principles apply to the tarrasch / semi-tarrasch, but even moreso - white sees the tarrasch in about 1% of games. On lichess at 2200+ level, in rapid, black has a 49% winrate vs 42% in the tarrasch. There are very few 1. d4 defenses that boast numbers like that. And why? Because white plays it 1% of the time and generally has no idea what they're getting into. I had a 2100ish rated player the other day freeze for like a minute on move 6... and he lost. Again, I'm not an idealist - I don't aim to be a pro player - I don't recommend other people fancy themselves as pro players. I tell people to play the game as if they were a club player.
Also there has been an interesting advance in the theory lately with the Dubov tarrasch, which I think is really an improvement, and black scores very well in that line.
This is a debate that's ultimately about style and preference, but death to me is facing an opponent who's been playing chess since they were 10 years old, knows the theory out to move 40, and just kills me in a completely rote, theoretical position. If I die but put the opponent under some actual pressure then at least I could have played better and there's the possibility I could have won. But if to win I'm required to spend my entire life studying opening theory... my skill is capped and I've already lost at a certain point.
I ain't reading all that. King's Indian Defense is good.
We're getting into serious TL/DR territory.
ibrust wrote:
I also play the Tarrasch as my base defense to 1. d4. I Like it a lot for various reasons. But I also learned a lot about chess playing the KID in times long past. It's theory is huge but at my level that doesnt matter so much as understanding the thematic ideas, pawn breaks, piece rearrangements and formations.
For the Tarrasch, the main drawback is that most white players at my level play 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. e3 when the position is fine for black but gets repetitve.
I also play von Hennig-Schara , esp in blitz, and am learning the Dubov. It looks interesting but , like many super sharp openings, white can force a draw if prepared. The main line with Bg5 when black replies c5-c4 is still murky to me. I need to play over several hundred GM games in it to get a better feeling for it.
Bill
SwimmerBill wrote:
ibrust wrote:
I also play the Tarrasch as my base defense to 1. d4. I Like it a lot for various reasons. But I also learned a lot about chess playing the KID in times long past. It's theory is huge but at my level that doesnt matter so much as understanding the thematic ideas, pawn breaks, piece rearrangements and formations.
For the Tarrasch, the main drawback is that most white players at my level play 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. e3 when the position is fine for black but gets repetitve.
I also play von Hennig-Schara , esp in blitz, and am learning the Dubov. It looks interesting but , like many super sharp openings, white can force a draw if prepared. The main line with Bg5 when black replies c5-c4 is still murky to me. I need to play over several hundred GM games in it to get a better feeling for it.
Bill
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. e3 Nf6 5. Nf3 a6 - you can create a little imbalance, the position may be boring but considering black wins 53% vs 37% on lichess at high level... out of about a thousand games, it's hard to consider this too much of a drawback.
Don't these people have anything else to do in their lives other than trying to outsmart the opening prep of a bunch of nobodies they'll be paired against in the next tournament?
You mean.... don't these people on this chess forum / website have anything to do other than to discuss chess openings, the very point of this subforum which you are on?
At least I'm here using the forum for its intended purpose - what would be much lamer is if I came to chess forums with no interest in discussing chess, just because it's the way I socialize, where mostly I complain about things / denigrate the very purpose of the forum I'm on, because I have nothing better to do - I wouldn't consider that fulfilling some life calling.
One can also argue that every minute a person spends playing chess is time wasted. But if anyone reading this believes that they should refrain from commenting and close their browser.
Carry onward!
Hhhmmm, hhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm