good
How good is the kings Indian attack
Sort:
Theoretical strength: two stars
Practical strength: three stars
Interest/excitement factor: two stars
Educational factor: two stars
Jun 27, 2014
0
#5
Usually you won't get an advantage out of the opening with it. You get rich positional middle games with equal chances.
What's top stars
Theoretical strength: two stars
Practical strength: three stars
Interest/excitement factor: two stars
Educational factor: two stars
It's theoretically sound, and practically reasonable because its effectively a system you can use against almost any black try.
However, it is more boring than dust, and I would rather eat broken glass than play the white side.
Five stars is top. No opening will get a straight five stars. Anyway, that was just my opinion.
It is better to play it against openings where black plays an early e6 for example the french defense and the sicilian variations with 2. e6. Because than you have the chance to play e5 and play for a king side attack and black's light squared bishop is passive. It doesn't work so well against openings where black gets his light squared bishop out, but certainly playable.
Ajameschess09 hat geschrieben:
How good is the kings Indian attack
For someone who asks this question: Bad. Universal set-ups don't really help beginners to develop a basic understanding of chess.
So it is possible to win with the KIA if black plays funny moves like 11.g5?! and 12.g4??
csalami10 wrote:
It is better to play it against openings where black plays an early e6 for example the french defense and the sicilian variations with 2. e6. Because than you have the chance to play e5 and play for a king side attack and black's light squared bishop is passive. It doesn't work so well against openings where black gets his light squared bishop out, but certainly playable.
I believe it was Fischer who made the comment that its good when black has played a pawn to e6 (the French, some Sicilian lines, etc), but weak otherwise. But, for practical purposes, Fischer's standard for 'weak' will be irrelevant for many players.
Jun 28, 2014
0
#13
@hijodeluna: With all due respect, in your example game your opponent just lost his marbles.
I was thinking the following:
Spanish (White):
Theorectical strength: five stars
Practical strength: four stars
Fun (yes, I changed the name) factor: four stars
Educational factor: five stars
Spanish as Black:
Theoretical strength: four stars
Practical strength: two stars
Fun factor: three stars
Educational factor: six stars (out of five)
I agree with pfren, you can't really go too wrong with the Spanish.
csalami10 wrote:
It is better to play it against openings where black plays an early e6 for example the french defense and the sicilian variations with 2. e6. Because than you have the chance to play e5 and play for a king side attack and black's light squared bishop is passive. It doesn't work so well against openings where black gets his light squared bishop out, but certainly playable.
Correct. And GMs, IMs routinely play it against ...e6. The advantage to White of controlling the light squares is very powerful when Black's LSB is hemmed in. Magnus Carlsen demonstrates how the technique of controlling the light squares can become thematic from the opening thru to the endgame in the following clickable video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RNGGrK3gU4
Jun 29, 2014
0
#16
I play the KIA all the time. I think the KIA is good--I may not be the best at using it, but it seems good to me ;-)
hijodeluna hat geschrieben:
It is possible to win in any opening as long as the opponent makes a mistake and you can capitalize on it.
[...]
My points on the KIA are still valid and true -
The Kings Indian Attack is one of the most versatile, flexible, strategically deep, and unexplored openings in Chess. It is one of the best arenas to set-up a game in which the best player with the best understanding will win.
For theoretical value 5 stars out of 5. Why ? Because it is largely unexplored, still protected from over-analysis, and being over played, and still very sound.
[...]
After 1.Nf3, the pure potential for positional, tactical, planning, strategizing, maneuvering, end-game play, all of the goodies IM Pfren makes on the Ruy Lopez, everything can be found after 1.Nf3.
As long as both opponents make it possible, it's all there.
Yes, it's even possible to win with 1.f3, if your opponent plays like the one we saw in your game. So what does that tell us about the value of the move 1.f3?
You could have posted a game by Kamsky, who regularly plays the KIA with quite some success. Even more often he plays London System with quite some success. What do these openings have in common? Yes, exactly. They are considered equal by theory, but offer both sides reasonable chances for a complex middlegame, where a strong practician (like Kamsky, but this would certainly also extend to Andrejkin or Carlsen) can hope to show his superiority.
Comparing this stuff to Ruy Lopez or QGD only makes sense as a joke. Under this premise, practically everything is 5 stars. Why not add Trompovsky or Scottish to the mix? Why not Sicilian Dragon or my beloved Benoni? Why not King's or Budapest Gambit? And what's Fajarowicz? 4 stars?
@Rumo75
Openings where White is pressing the initiative from the first move are theoretically superior. Assessing the theoretical soundness of an opening based on how many stars is ridiculous. As was posted earlier(post #9 by csalami10 and myself post#20) the King's Indian Attack is good when Black plays ...e6 and hems in his LSB. If that doesn't happen White needs to look for transpositions. Those of us that know what openings to transpose into are the players who have a comprehensive understanding of the King's Indian Attack as an opening. And, are keenly aware of how much utter nonsense stars ratings are.
Try to gain access to some of GM Fischer's games with the KiA opening. Its a relatively slow tactiful opening unlike say the aggressive queens gambit.
How good is the kings Indian attack