How good is the Kings Indian for beginners?

But in both instances there is no chance that the experience gives the practitioner a learning opportunity... IMO anyway.

The King's Indian is a very sharp, complex opening. I believe it is playable at beginner level, because you are playing opponents of around the same strength.

But advisable? No, it is too theoretical to be advisable to beginners. There is no point in learning lines and complicated theoretical imbalances in the position, if you (or your opponent) are still dropping pieces pretty consistently.

Play d5 against d4. After that, just play whatever you like. I've seen some beginners enjoy the pyramid defense (pawns on e6, d5, and c6)

I love PLAYING the KID!

Wanna play some Blitz? :D

Afterwards, we may need a new nickname for you.

I used to play the KID, and understood the purpose of the first several moves, but after reaching the basic setup, I would have no idea how to create an attack against white. I would try breaking the center with c5 followed by e6, or sometimes with e5, but I never had a plan after that, and most my games would be won because white would carelessly leave my black bishop's diagonal vulnerable to a discovered attack; usually this ended up with me up a pawn and a laborious struggle to a winning endgame. 

Of course, this isn't how the KID is meant to be played. It's not an opening, I think, that can be mastered simply by toying with it in games (unless you're a very strong and creative player); it requires some serious study. 

Recently I switched to a Semi-Slav. I watched a couple Youtube videos on it, and am now playing it quite successfully and getting much more interesting games than I ever did with the KID.

Did you ever try f7-f5? Lol, this pawn thrust is pretty much the central idea that the entire opening revolves around, in almost all lines. Contain White's space advantage, and then open some lines (or close them and attack White's king) on the king side.

"I would try breaking the center with c5 followed by e6, or sometimes with e5"

Rarely is c5 a good idea, because the c pawn is a useful defender of d6.

e6 is occasionally a good idea, but only in certain lines like the four pawns attack for example.

^ This sounds like you're playing the KID like a Benoni to me. It's not the same thing.

Still, the dullest Benoni line should still be sharper than a Slav.

One reason to learn KID is that you learn positional concepts rather than just tactical fireworks. Look on YouTube for GM Kasimdzhanov vs. Garry Kasparov. Both of these players are considered the

best KID players. Kaspys response to d4 was d5. Oh! And Kaspy lost to Kasimdzhanov! Kasims rating is currently 2709 and he's #32 in the world.

d5 is a classical opening (fill center with pawns) KID is a hypermodern opening (attack center with pieces). When looking through grandmaster games, KID is one of the most common responses.

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!

I agree with Pfren. 

The King's Indian is fairly easy to describe, but very difficult to play well. 

Novices (and this refers to anyone under ~1700 here) should probably stay far away from openings such as the King's Indian and Grunfeld. Instead, they should focus on more classical lines such as the Queen's Gambit Tarrasch, The Lasker Variation, or the Orthodox QGD. 

If a player has no real goal of improving, then they can play whatever they like. But the KID will punish weak play more than other openings will. White gets a huge positional advantage in return for allowing an attack. If Black's attack falls even a tempo short, the game is often easily won for White. 

In many respects the King's Indian is far more risky than the King's Gambit!

depends on variation... QG Slav and Orthodox declined (most common I think) both have centers full of pawns. In KID, black doesn't stick any pawns in the center for a while, first fianchettoing a bishop and developing minor pieces to attack the center. By hypermodern, I meant just for black; lets white build up strong center full of pawns, then attack it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermodernism_(chess); look at definion of hypermodernism, then see that KID is included on it. BTW, my definitions were the most concise and accurate I could write without filling a page with technicalities

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.

As a beginner, it's better to stick with maybe a couple of openings such as the King or Queen pawn deals. All these other openings for the most part are figured out twenty moves or so ahead where this would mean nothing to any beginner.

lol, sure, right behind the QGD, slav, nimzo, and grunfeld I'd bet.

slav and nimzo are part of same cluster of openings, and queen's gambit variations are also very common. Note: I didn't say THE most common but ONE of the most common, which it most definitely is

I don't know that you learn them so much as if you don't know them you're totally lost.  And not the standard classical positional stuff either.  To my eye black just looks worse... period.  Also this positional knowledge is not enough.  You have to have the tactical vision of Kasparov to make it follow through.

Pretty much like Pfren said, if you think you're playing it well you're dreaming.  I see GambitExtraordinaire, USCF 2000, says he likes it.  But honestly I wonder how well a lowly expert can navigate this opening.

Sure.  It's not obscure or anything... I mean it was, but then Kasparov showed it was possible to play it (maybe Fischer too).

Apparently the only requirement is to be rated about 200 points above your average opponent lol.

Regardless, GMs and beginners play different games.

Are you really saying that the King's Indian was obscure until Kasparov played it?

Maybe Fishcer was reviving it as early as the 60s?  I guess I don't know.  That's what I'd read somewhere, that when Kasparov started using it players at the time didn't believe in it as an opening that works at a high level.  Maybe I'm not remembering it correctly.

No, not that it was obscure.  It's a well known opening.  But that players didn't trust it... maybe like not allowing the Maroczy bind in the Sicilian... and then they find out how black should play.

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.