How do you play the K.I.D. when White plays e3 instead of e4?

If you think you're smarter than Caruana and the entire assembly of GMIs because you have looked at a weak engine for a couple of minutes, your loss.

I did not say that. Are you even reading what i write? I said up there:

"Caruana either tryed to throw Grischuck off the book or had an interesting sharp line. He played one against Ding that blew my mind"

It was Ding not Grischuck but then again, i praised he's strategy

There is a book called "e3 poison" http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/11/297/e3_poison_hardcover_by_axel_smith/

that covers this, and variations for Grunfeld, Modern Benoni approach.  If black sticks with playing for e5, the position goes into one of the main-lines of the kings indian attack reversed, where white has an extra tempo. 

I can read your posts very well thank you. Later you stated "Fabi did go for a weaker move "just" to make Ding burn he's time". That was not his strategy. He did not gamble on a bad line.

While you take a single sentence of an entire post and deem "Wrong", you yet give virtually the same explanation that I do of not playing ...e5.

Let's look at another sentence in the post that you only partially quoted:

" In these e3-lines, you should have answered your own question about the lack of the ...Nxe4 trick.  The answer is you don't play ...e5."

Hmmm... "In these e3-lines" - That includes 4.e3, which compared to 4.Nf3/5.Bg5 and 4.Nf3/5.Bf4, both typically followed by e3, is rarer.

And just as proof, FOOL, 365chess.com, after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7, the move 4.e3 is played 277 times.  The move 4.Nf3 is played 7038 times.  Break 4.Nf3 down further, and after 4...O-O, 5.Bg5 occurs 3199 times and 5.Bf4 1248 times.

Let's see here - a little basic arithmetic for you:

4.Nf3/5.Bg5 - 3199

4.Nf3/5.Bf4 - 1248

4.e3 - 277

3199 is greater than 1248 which is greater than 277!

Also, great job sounding just like Donald Trump, mimicking what was said before and virtually claimed you came up with this great idea of playing an early ...c5.  Can I interest you in an orange spray tan?

Here's even the final sentence of the post that you only 10% quoted:

"So if they do 4.e3, without bringing the Bishop out to g5 or f4, it's even more passive for White.  Strike at the center in similar fashion, an early ...c5 resulting in a Benoni, Benko, or trade and ...d5 type of structure."

From now on, if you are going to quote me, QUOTE THE ENTIRE MESSAGE, YOU GOT IT????????????????????????  OTHERWISE - GET LOST!

Hey. Don't be rude, bro. BRICK letters be disrespect. A few points. Maybe that's the idea? With e3 White might be hoping for a Benoni type game, to avoid the traditional KID pawn storm? Also, engines hate the KID, because of the cramped positions. Also, it doesn't score great... because lots of people don't have a clue about playing KID properly. If you going to play KID... put in some hard study, or don't bother. 

You just said the forbidden word

Yes, 277 - Read the source, MORON!  I didn't say chessbase.  I listed the source in post 26!

LEARN TO READ!  I said 365chess.com, not chessbase.com!  See below!

More like the W word - WRONG!

Again, READ THE SOURCE, MORON!  And the physical number doesn't mean jack.  It's the ratio.  There is no difference if 4.e3 is played 277 times and 4.Nf3/5.Bg5 with an upcoming e3 is played over 3 thousand times, or if 4.e3 is played 11 times that and 4.Nf3/5.Bg5 is also played 11 times the number from the other source!

All pfren is doing is taking 5 percent of each message to twist it and make it sound wrong and make him sound smart when what he says doesn't mean jack bleep!

If 4.e3 is played 1 time and 4.Nf3/5.Bg5 is played 10 times, or if 4.e3 is played 10,000 times and 4.Nf3/5.Bg5 is played 100,000 times, you have not countered what I said to begin with!

So until you can give fully disproving data, SHUT UP AND GET LOST!

@ThrillerFan You should respect @Pfren more dude, he's an IM and you are a patzer, it's evident who knows more (hint, not you).

BTW, Chessbase > 365chess.com

Chess rating and statistical analysis are NOT the same thing.  Clearly I am stronger at statistical analysis than that clown is!

FINE!  Then show me the stats for 4.Nf3/5.Bg5 - Still bet you is it NUMEROUS times more played than 4.e3.  Not double.  Not triple!

Show complete stats before you start claiming other posts are wrong - AND READ THE ENTIRE GD POST TOO!

Citing the amount of times a position has been played is NOT statistical analysis, pretending otherwise shows an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Everything right at home?

It does show something. If most players/engines do not play it, it is probably deviating from theory, and is objectively not a good move

Not to mentioned, he doesn't even know how to show numbers.  To see the total number of times 4.e3 is played, you don't put 4.e3 on the board.  You go through 3.Bg7, and then observe the number beside 4.e3, and then click on 4.Nf3 and 4...O-O and see the number beside 5.Bg5, and I bet you that second number is WAY HIGHER than the number beside 4.e3.

The exact point I just made - It has nothing to do with the number of times one move is played.  It has to do with how often one is played RELATIVELY to another move.

If 1.e4 is played 20,000 times, and 1.d4 is played 40,000 times, it has nothing to do with the quantity, it's relativity.  1.d4 would be deemed twice as more common as 1.e4.  If you pull up a different database and that one is 300,000 1.e4 games, and 600,000 1.d4 games, it's still double, or 2 to 1.

Relative Value, not Absolute Count, is what matters!