hmmm.
How good is the Kings Indian for beginners?
Sort:
Apr 11, 2013
0
#43
SmyslovFan wrote:
Expertise87 wrote:
Wait, 1...d5 fills the center with pawns while the KID attacks the center with pieces? I've been playing both of these all wrong!
Black's play in the Mar del Plata variation of the King's Indian is indeed heavily reliant on piece play such as Bg7, Nf6, Nc6-e7. Black stakes almost everything on a K-side attack while giving up the center and Q-side. This is why White wins most endgames in the KID, but Black often scores with a K-side knock-out.
The Black side of the Queen's gambit is indeed more reliant on central pawn pushes such as d5, e6, c6/c5. You rarely see Black play d5 in the King's Indian.
Let me make sure we're on the same page here.
Center filled with pawns (1.d4 d5):
Center is not filled with pawns (KID):
Apr 11, 2013
0
#44
Expertise, the comment about the center being filled with pawns was from Black's perspective.
Take a look at the Orthodox QGD and compare it to the King's Indian Mar del Plata. In that line, black has d6 and e5 pawns in the center while the Orthodox has d5, e6, and c6/c5.
Yes, the QGD has the potential for an open center, but it's not forced.
SmyslovFan wrote:
Bronstein and Geller were at the forefront of the King's Indian in the 1940s and 1950s. Bronstein played it against Botvinnik in the World Championship match of 1951.
Some of the most important games of the Zurich 1953 tournament were in the King's Indian. Here are just two early examples of that great opening.
I'm sure I didn't just imagine it though. There must have been something that made it less popular at some point.
I see it was played a few times in this years Candidate's match as well. Radjabov wasn't in form, so maybe not good to look at the overall results. I see Gelfand drew Kramnik though, and Grischuk drew Svidler.
Expertise87 wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Expertise87 wrote:
Wait, 1...d5 fills the center with pawns while the KID attacks the center with pieces? I've been playing both of these all wrong!
Black's play in the Mar del Plata variation of the King's Indian is indeed heavily reliant on piece play such as Bg7, Nf6, Nc6-e7. Black stakes almost everything on a K-side attack while giving up the center and Q-side. This is why White wins most endgames in the KID, but Black often scores with a K-side knock-out.
The Black side of the Queen's gambit is indeed more reliant on central pawn pushes such as d5, e6, c6/c5. You rarely see Black play d5 in the King's Indian.
Let me make sure we're on the same page here.
Center filled with pawns (1.d4 d5):
Center is not filled with pawns (KID):
Queen's gambit accepted??? Orthodox declined is a lot more common. Go to the wikipedia page for Hypermodern (chess), I think I posted it earlier. Look at the definition, note that KID is included in it. Don't pick just variations that support your point, look at the whole opening.
Apr 11, 2013
0
#47
I just think of the KID as an opening where in many variations the center is blocked by pawns, and the QG variations can have any number of pawns in the center. The Catalan, a topical QG line, frequently has Black capturing on c4 as well by the way.
And 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 quite often leads to the QGD Exchange variation, where the center is not jammed with pawns like it is in the main line of the KID.
pfren wrote:
The KID is a very simple opening.
Black blocks the center. Then, he frees and pushes his f-pawn. After that, he conducts a violent attack. Next to that, he checkmates white. In the end, he wakes up, and realizes it was just a dream- in reality he never had the chance to utilize his majestic plan, and he has been completely outplayed, because the position was too much for him to understand...
If the above scenario appeals to you, then by all means play the KID any time, at any playing level. Else...
Kasparov and Fischer....SLAMMED!
w
Dec 19, 2021
0
#50
In some respects, @pfren is right, Black often blocks the center and then attacks the base of White’s pawn chain with f5, and sometimes plays f4, g5 and h5.
The Kings Indian is often a race.
From White’s perspective, I view it more as a form of calculus in many respects. The opening is a study of acceleration. And just as with calculus, it takes a mind with a certain amount of development to understand. Calculus teachers know that some students just do not have the mental maturity, regardless of their intelligence, to grasp the finer points of calculus. Students may fail miserably at understanding calculus one year and the next year understand it extremely well.
The same thing happens with the Kings Indian. At its most basic level it is just a race and anyone can understand a race. But dig just a bit deeper and the calculus of the opening is clear. It can be incredibly difficult for young students to grasp but older students often understand it very quickly.
I don’t generally recommend calculus or the Kings Indian to young students. But gifted older students often grasp its double-edged nature and the finer points of when and how to alter the acceleration of the various attacks quite well.
Bear in mind though that Kasparov, who loved the Kings Indian, considered it to be as risky for Black as the Kings Gambit is for White.
The opening has definitely become less popular at the highest levels in recent years.
Bronstein and Geller were at the forefront of the King's Indian in the 1940s and 1950s. Bronstein played it against Botvinnik in the World Championship match of 1951.
Some of the most important games of the Zurich 1953 tournament were in the King's Indian. Here are just two early examples of that great opening.