Jengaias you are incorrect!
You and Ziryab both seem to be wandering ...
You spared five hundred words instead of just three to say:
"I am clueless".
Is it a new way to make people who are bored reading your nonsense to agree with you?
I've heard the KIA recommended to new-ish players before.
I've always disagreed.
Well it depends on where you stand!
I have heard some coaches tell there students to forget openings and work on middle game planning + tactics.
Many suggest for there students to use chess principles as a way of just getting a equal position out of the opening than playing from there!
I myself always found such advice generic.
I never liked the idea of using chess principles to develop pieces randomly.
Thus, When I first started I played the KIA as a way of at least getting out of the opening with a game plan set up etc.
The only thing which I can say is tough about the KIA is trying to break the habit of doing mechanical moves/auto pilot moves.
You see I have a theory!
Ziryab said that the students he has who plays these sort of line often end up doing well in the begin, but than end up stunting there progression.
An I have a theory as to why that happens.
When you play the KIA what are you really doing?
In a sense you are skipping the opening by playing some mechanical moves.
Which allow you the chance to study/hit the middle game phase of planning very hard!
You learn faster by isolating a specific phase!
For example:
Lets say you have 6 hours to study.
Lets say Person A does the below method of studying:
Lets say Person A spreads out the 6 hours evenly between the opening, middle game, and endgame.
What you are doing is basically studying each phase for 2 hours worth of time.
Lets say Person B does the below method of studying:
Lets say Person B only study's the middle game for the whole 6 hours.
Who is going to learn the middle game faster?
Person B!
Person B is will progress in the begin faster because he is playing an equalish opening so that he can use his surpreme middle game knowledge over Person A!
However, this progression is only temporary!
Now lets give an example to show what I mean.
Lets say each phase has a cap time of 12 hours!
Now watch what happens here!
Person A first day did 2 hours opening | 2 hours middle | 2 hours end
Person B first day did 6 hours middle
Now lets pretend the cap is 12 hours.
Day 2 comes around
Person A does same strategy 6 hours spread evenly.
Now he has a full total of:
4 hours opening | 4 hours middle | 4 hours end
Person B does same strategy
Now he has a full total of:
12 hours middle
Day 3 comes around
Person A does same strategy 6 hours spread evenly.
Now he has a full total of:
6 hours opening | 6 hours middle | 6 hours end
Now comes the problem!
Person B has already done 12 hours worth of middle game study.
Now he needs to focus on his other area's!
Now is were the problem happens!
Person B has been using his Mechincal KIA opening this whole time.
However, the time has come were he has to do opening study!!
Person B now he has to let it go of his KIA line to learn other opening lines!!!!!
Person B has become line dependent! He has been playing the KIA for so long he can't let it go! Person B has become attached to his opening!
He has to let it go. He has to move on to other demanding lines. You have to keep evolving as a chess player. This simple example shows you why Person B ends up dropping off and not progressing!
Person A never has this problem! WHY? Because Person A was never line dependent! Person A studied different opening lines since the begin!
An what will end up happening is if Person B continues to refuse to play other openings Person A will eventually start slaugthering him!
In the begin the KIA was evenish and Person B had better middle game skills which is why he slaugthered Person A.
In the end the KIA is still evenish, but Person A has finally caught up to Person B middle game skills and is now crushing him in other area's of the game.
Now one may think well this is a perfect example of why you shouldn't play the KIA X_PLAYER_J_X!
My response to this is:
Is this really a good example showing why a person shouldn't play the KIA?
Think about it we know the problem Person B is having!
Person B has become sentimental towards a line!
You can't blame poor Person B for getting sentimental over a line!!!
He is human for crying out loud.
Take me for example:
I have a pair of shoes I use to wear in high school.
Those shoes don't even fit me any more and I can't bare to part with them!!!
Who says Person B can't over come this struggle?
There is a lot of things we can do to help Person B from falling into this line dependent situation!
We can tell him to mix in other diverse lines in his play!
We can tell encourage him to play one line for a few weeks than have him switch up!
We can try different move orders!
I played the KIA a lot in my beginning years of chess.
I never opened with 1.Nf3!
I never got into the KIA by using the 1.Nf3 move order.
Which is considered to be the main move order!
I always used 1.e4!
When ever I played 1.e4 if my opponent played 1...e6 or 1...c5
Only than did I try for a KIA set up.
If my opponent played 1...e5 I played the Italian Game!
I had diversity!
It is easy for a person to dismiss openings like the KIA or London System.
Look at the struggles they have over come!
It speaks volumes!
Thus, I disagree with everyone who says such absurd claims!
The Italian Game, KIA, & London System are perfectly acceptable openings.
Granted they have there limitations.
However, if you understand what the limitations are you can use them to great effect!
@Ezamit
Don't listen to these people!
You are better off getting a coach or coming up with a plan yourself.
It is completely obvious people on this forum have no clue what they are even talking about.
They are trying to agrue in good conscience that the Kings Indian Attack & Kings Indian Defense are considered positional?????
Never in a million years has it been recongized as a Positional opening.
It has always been considered a Tactical/Dynamic Opening.
All openings in chess have both positional and tactical elements.
However, one element often dwarfs the other.
The KIA & KID are more recongized as tactical elements than positional ones.
It is completely obvious all they feel like doing is giving false information.
Jengaias even went as far as to say Garry Kasparov has wonderful positional skills.
Yes, Garry Kasparov played the Kings Indian Defense to positionally squeeze his opponent into submission!
What a moron!
What ever you do don't listen to them!
You are better off going to a professional.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with teaching the Vienna to kids. It's a good, classical line. As some others mentioned, it's a gambit line, which is important for kids to learn. Gambits teach kids not to be too materialistic and to value development. Of course, there are more main stream openings that kids can learn, but that doesn't mean the Vienna was a bad choice.
This is a real problem with seeking advice from the internet. The best answer you will get will usually be the staid, safe answer, wrapped up as the only possible response.
Chess teaches us to think independently. Trust yourself.
Teaching openings to a kid is the best way to make him/her hate chess.
@Ezamit
WIM P-Fran above quote is all you need to know about him!
He summed up his knowledge in a single sentence!
WIM P-Fran is very lucky!
Lucky that FIDE doesn't require you to maintain your ranking.
Lord only knows if FIDE required WIM P-Fran to maintain his title ranking he would of lost his title years ago!
Yes!
Lets not teach kids any opening!
Lets all start off in Thematic positions!
HOOOOOOORRRRAAYYYYY!
This is a real problem with seeking advice from the internet. The best answer you will get will usually be the staid, safe answer.
Interesting choice...
I would have gone with the problem is answers from X_Player_JX 
Jengaias even went as far as to say Garry Kasparov has wonderful positional skills.
Wow, he went that far did he?
Do you know what IM is?
He would slaughter you half drunk , with fever , his eyes closed and 2 rooks down.
Yes I know what IM is.
Back in 1976 when WIM P-Fran got his IM title.
I absolutely 100% agree with you.
He probably slaugthered a lot of people.
However, in todays world 2016 I have no doubt that the OP who is around a Class D rated play can take him!
It is amazing what age can do to a chess players mind.
Crying shame really!
I would love to see that chess match
Ezamit vs WIM P-Fran
Final score prediction
Ezamit wins 4 to 3
My son is rated around 750 and I have taught him Vienna opening for white. After reviewing few of his games, I feel it might not be a good opening for beginners. Any recommendations for a good fundamentally sound opening for white.
Some advice:
1. Stop teaching him openings at that level. Teach him Opening Principles:
Control the center
Develop minor pieces toward the center
Castle
Connect your rooks
2. Tactics...tactics..tactics...
3. Basic Mates - KQ vs. K, KR vs. K, KRR vs. K
4. Basic Endings - KP vs K, opposition
BWWWAHAHAHHAHAAHH
I can't believe it!
This guy right here >>> Jengaias
Says I don't understand chess.
His blitz ranking is 1,100.
An he has the nerve to tell me I don't understand chess!
I can't believe it!
This guy right here >>> Jengaias
Says Tal was a positional player!
Says The Kings Indian Defense is a positional line!
I can't believe it!
He said all of this!
This guy right here >>> Jengaias
I can't believe he said it!
He had the nerve to say it!
This guy right here >>> Jengaias
It's fine!
If you wish to believe your own made up lies than go ahead!
Yes! Tal was such an amazing positional player! The way he won every game by slowly squeezing his opponents to death like a python is unparallel!
Tal's positional exchange sacrifices are legend!
This guy right here >>> Jengaias believes this!
I can't believe he said it!
BWWWAHAHAHHAHAAHH
I can't believe it!
This guy right here >>> Jengaias
Says I don't understand chess.
His blitz ranking is 1,100.
An he has the nerve to tell me I don't understand chess!
I can't believe it!
This guy right here >>> Jengaias
Says Tal was a positional player!
Says The Kings Indian Defense is a positional line!
I can't believe it!
He said all of this!
This guy right here >>> Jengaias
I can't believe he said it!
He had the nerve to say it!
This guy right here >>> Jengaias
It's fine!
If you wish to believe your own made up lies than go ahead!
Yes! Tal was such an amazing positional player! The way he won every game by slowly squeezing his opponents to death like a python is unparallel!
Tal's positional exchange sacrifices are legend!
This guy right here >>> Jengaias believes this!
I can't believe he said it!
Tal was an incredibly gifted positional player. Petrosian, was a very well known positional player that could bust out some incredible tactics.
Any experienced chess player knows this...maybe...just maybe jengaias is correct.
Ponziani read my blog
BWWWAHAHAHHAHAAHH
I can't believe it!
This guy right here >>> Jengaias
Says I don't understand chess.
His blitz ranking is 1,100.
An he has the nerve to tell me I don't understand chess!
I can't believe it!
This guy right here >>> Jengaias
Says Tal was a positional player!
Says The Kings Indian Defense is a positional line!
I can't believe it!
He said all of this!
This guy right here >>> Jengaias
I can't believe he said it!
He had the nerve to say it!
This guy right here >>> Jengaias
It's fine!
If you wish to believe your own made up lies than go ahead!
Yes! Tal was such an amazing positional player! The way he won every game by slowly squeezing his opponents to death like a python is unparallel!
Tal's positional exchange sacrifices are legend!
This guy right here >>> Jengaias believes this!
I can't believe he said it!
Tal was an incredibly gifted positional player. Petrosian, was a very well known positional player that could bust out some incredible tactics.
Any experienced chess player knows this...maybe...just maybe jengaias is correct.
No , it doesn't have to do with experience.It has to do with serious non-superficial study.Something he has never done.
He is from the guys that run a game and once they reach the sacrifice they say "wow!!!! what a great tactical player" and they kneel and praise God.They can't understand even one move before the sacrifice , and they don't even try.
For all those Karpov was positional and Kasparov was tactical.The truth is that both were equally good positional and tactical players.But how can you make them understand that?
Or how can you make them understand that King's Indian defense is equally positionaly complex with Nimzo Indian(if not more)?
You have been here long enough to know that people here love to label everything.
"Im a tactical player"
"Im a positional player"
"I know <insert opening here> 20 moves deep"
"Im an agressive player"
And on and on...
If you dont know what youre talking about, label it!
I want to say one last thing to Ezamit.
Teach your son endgames.
While the value of openings for beginners and kids is highly doubtful(many claim they do more harm than good) the value of endgames is not doubted by any serious trainer and will serve him well from now till he becomes grandmaster(if he ever does).They will help him understand the properties of the pieces and they will help him develop a thinking process.
Understanding in chess begins with the endgame.
Excellent advice that is often ignored. I can understand the fascination with openings for beginners. We are taught early on how to win with fools mate, scholars mate, etc. We fall in love with them and think we are invincible. This carries over into the "I know<insert openinig here> 20-30 moves deep" mentality. And these same players will post asking why they are not improving when they know openings 20 moves deep, and still drop pieces, miss simple tactics, and cant mate.
I start all my students at the end.
Basic mates
Opposition
Key squares
King on the 6th
The foundation of chess. It does no good to put a roof on the house, when the foundation is weak.
I want to say one last thing to Ezamit.
Teach your son endgames.
While the value of openings for beginners and kids is highly doubtful(many claim they do more harm than good) the value of endgames is not doubted by any serious trainer and will serve him well from now till he becomes grandmaster(if he ever does).They will help him understand the properties of the pieces and they will help him develop a thinking process.
Understanding in chess begins with the endgame.
In the first two sentences of Chess Fundamentals, Jose Capablanca states that a beginner must first learn the relative values of the pieces. He suggests that learning the basic checkmates--rook and king, queen and king, two bishops and king. Later in the book, he teaches checkmates that do not require coordination with the King.
Another World Champion, Vasily Smyslov notes in his book Endgame Virtuouso that the true power of each piece is most clearly perceived in the endgame.
A big problem with teaching children is that the fastest results come if you teach them to deliver scholar's mate. But, when children start outplaying higher rated adults in endgames, heads turn.
Two of my students have done that recently. They since have moved beyond me and now take their lessons from a local FIDE Master.
Tal was an incredibly gifted positional player. Petrosian, was a very well known positional player that could bust out some incredible tactics.
Any experienced chess player knows this...maybe...just maybe jengaias is correct.
Tal was a Grand Master.
You don't become a Grand Master with out having positional and tactical understanding.
When people call Tal a tactical player.
They are not labeling him.
They are simply describing the legacy he left on the game.
He use to love to do attacks.
He is remembered for his attacking style.
Thus, that is why they call him a tactical player.
When Jengaias comes along and says Tal was a positional player?
Than the picture is clear!
Jengaias is an idiot who is incorrect because that is not what Tal is remembered for.
He is remembered for his attacking | aggressive | tactical style.
Which is why people considered him a tactical attacking player.
Now if by chance Jengaias was simply trying to point out that Tal did have great positional play.
Than the question which arises is:
Why even mention it?
It has nothing to do with my agruement!
It is as if Jengaias is coming out of left field with a novice response.
Tal was a great positional player!
Tal knew how to mate with 2 bishops!
So what?
He is a Grand Master obviously he knows positional play and how to mate with 2 bishops!
What the h*ll does that have to do with me saying he is a tactical player?
Diakonia if you can explain it than by all means go ahead!
Jengaias seems nothing more than an idiot or an irrelevant noob.
Starting from Alekhine, all the World champions have the very same playing style. It's called universal style. The differences are purely qualitative.
But this is way too much for xpatzer to understand.
He also "forgets" that I am mainly a trainer the last 30 years, a certified FIDE Trainer (second highest official trainer title), while himself can barely teach leaping to a frog.
Here's a website with 10 openings that are good for beginners to start out with and learn well. http://coolchesssets.net/2016/02/20/10-of-the-best-chess-openings-you-need-know/. It's a pretty informative list that explains why each opening is effective in their own ways; feel free to check it out.
Tal
Garry Kasparov
Bronstein
Bobby Fischer
Hikaru Nakamura
Jobava
Do these players even sound like positional players?
Umm, yes, they're all exceptionally good positional players, even if they're famous for aggression, sacrifice, initiative, etc... except for FIscher, who doesn't fit in with that list.
And the KIA attacks, e.g. with a pawn on e5, are very positionally based.
And definitely the KID attacks are.