Yes but sacs in the KID are typically geared towards an attack, not towards a draw...
The Averbakh variation endgame, which is analysed up to move 55 or so, is a fairly typical pawn down endgame for Black... and this is just one case out of many in the king's indian in which black sacrifices something to get a level position.
I'm sure there are people who want an equal endgame with the KID, but I believe that most want an attack.
In the FPA, Black can practically force a draw with the Na6, e5 lines.
Since I'm too lazy to post the analysis, just go here:
In hindsight, the name was a BIT too exagerrated.
There is no reason to "prepare" ...e5: it's quite playable directly. Factly, it's a good move, if Black does not want more than a draw.
Isnt it better to prepare it by Na6, to go into the gambit lines?
I read a Fischer game somewhere where Bobby Fischer cracked it. The strategy involving a broad line of pawns is a flawed one, as any sharp player can crack it. It's much better going for a small center and developing naturally.
No kidding? And the proof of this (besides your unverified OPINION) is located where? For starters, lets see the alleged Fischer game. In everyone else's universe, The KID Four Pawns Attack is sound, if not necessarily the best option available for White
It may be technically sound, but it isn't optimal as it's too ambitious. I prefer restricting black's options with Bf4/h3/Nf3 setups.
Ummm, sorry to burst your bubble, but Letelier- Fischer is not a four pawns attack.
At what point in that game do you think Fischer saw the mate?
I always thought Nf6 before d6 was not a good move. Lesson learned.
PFren is right, 5.e5 Ne8 6.f4 is not a "Four Pawns Attack", but it is a four pawns attack in the King's Indian. Technically, this is E70, an anti-book move. The Four Pawns Attack is E76-E79 according to ECO.
Pfren, while technically, this is not a "Four Pawns Attack", it is a four pawns attack against the King's Indian. This is mostly just a cheeky gambit played by Black that white does best to ignore. White's most common response is just to get on with playing the King's Indian line he or she wanted to play in the first place. 5.f4 leads to the Four Pawn Attack without the weakening e5 push. But the most common move is 5.Nf3, transposing to classical King's Indian lines.
White's mistake wasn't really 6.f4, but 5.e5?! Having said that, Karpov played this line as white in a simul in 2004.
If White had played 5.f4 d6 6.e5?! would you have said it wasn't a Four Pawns attack, or would you have simply said that White had misplayed the Four Pawns Attack?
Even though this wasn't technically a "Four Pawn Attack", Scorpion was right both that there were four pawns in white's center early in the King's Indian and that Fischer demolished the pawn center with a timely and instructive counter-attack.
Really with the FPA, it creates an overextended center that is a ridiculous amount of fun to tear down if you know how.
So is it a good variation or not? Or is there an argument both ways?
Both ways... White CAN get a huge space advantage, but he has to be careful to not overextend and let his center get destroyed.
I have played both sides of the FPA with mixed results . As black I certainly don't fear it and as white I will sometimes use it when a win is absolutely necessary .
Hmmm... I rarely play this defense now, but it was definitely my favorite when I began chess. As for the Four Pawn Attack, I never saw it much. When I did, though, I had mixed results. I noticed that players who DNA handle the aggressiveness in the position for White can use this attack very effectively.
However, other players I have matched often overextend with the pawns and fall into several traps you can set for a player who does overextend. Sometimes the aggressiveness can add too much pressure and force White into making a mistake. Aside from that, though, this attack is very formidable against the KID.
Well Na6 and e5 can give black a perfectly acceptable position, with plenty of possibilities.
In Letelier - Fischer, ol Leipzig 1960 Fischer provocated 5 e5 because he played 4...0-0 instead of the "normal" 4...d6!
After this game a few improvements were found for White! 5 e5 is not as bad as Fischer pointed out! Nevertheless you can vary your move order by 4...0-0 as the improvements will probably lead to an equal game!
But it's defenitely not a 4PA!
10.e5 is probally ok in the first one but I don't understand 9...Bg4.
Black should play 9...Re8 attacking the e-pawn before doing anything else. Black needs to play it anyway so why not play it now? Then after 10.Nd2 Black has to figure something out but Bg4 doesn't really help with that.
9...Re8 is very suspect, 9...Bg4 is solid and reliable. We already mentioned that 9...Re8 is strongly answered by 10.e5, but you're probably too lazy to checkout... Oh well.
It does not matter at all if you understand 9...Bg4 or not: the move is absolutely logical, and best, since it stops white's tactical tricks. Could you look at it more closely, or this is too much of a fuss?