Laskersnephew wrote:
Aside from patzers, no strong player has ever played the Kings Indian. Look it up
So Kasparov, Judit Polgar, Uhlmann, and Geller were all Patzers, huh? At the ripe old age of 85, my money would be on Uhlmann over you!
Kings Indian Defence and why anyone plays it?
Sort:
This has been a test of the Sarcasm Alert System. It failed. But the Self-Righteous Indignation System worked perfectly!
Tania testing Bronstein's mental ability after his stroke: What's your name? David. Who played the KID the best of all? Geller. Or maybe was you or my dad? No, Geller.
He was fine.
Jun 4, 2020
0
#45
Damonevic-Smithlov wrote:
Laskersnephew wrote:
This has been a (failed) test of the Sarcasm Detection System!
Fischer played the King's Indian, Kasparov played the Kings Indian, Geller played it. Nakamura played it
I know, right? I was getting ready to point out u were joking til I saw ur reply.
Everybody that follows chess and it's history knows those geniuses of chess history played it. Not only played it sometimes but It was what they used to beat superstar players of history half to death with.
Don't forget Tal. Frickin' attacking genius of all time.
ScottTheQA έγραψε:
Im a huge user of the Kings Indian Defence, but I find Im always fighting an uphill battle when using it. So today I went to chessopenings.com and looked at the KID and was startled to learn that black has a 25% win rate with this opening, white with 36% and draws at 38%.
My question is: Why would anyone ever play an opening with such a ridiculously low rate of success?
It seems that you have to learn first what is the King's Indian Defence, because you don't.
And- in any case, it is an extremely complex opening which you'd better leave alone at beginner level.
Jun 4, 2020
0
#47
ScottTheQA wrote:
I like how thrillerfan answered my question but the floored NM didnt
TF wrote a 1000 word essay that amounted to: "win + 1/2 draw = percentage."
And there are no floors on chess.com, and no NM title for a bullet rating.
Jun 5, 2020
0
#48
Oh yeah, QGD, the most aggressive opening ever.
Everyone knows declined gambits are sharp, but the QGD is especially so.
Luckily black can play the KID and try to get a solid position without much risk.
Never mind that it's black who plays the QGD and QGA to begin with.
Jun 5, 2020
0
#49
This whole thread is clearly a joke. When the GOAT, The Boss, King Kasparov made a career by playing the KID then 'nuff said.....
Jun 5, 2020
0
#50
ScottTheQA wrote:
Im a huge user of the Kings Indian Defence, but I find Im always fighting an uphill battle when using it.
<snip>
My question is: Why would anyone ever play an opening with such a ridiculously low rate of success?
By now you found out it was the Pirc you were playing. What you need to know about the Pirc is that it requires a player to be very accurate. Ask yourself whether you're ready for that.
Secondly, may I advice you to play ...d5 asap, with the option to play c5 too, against white's early Nc3 (omitting c4). Point being that on your third move you can still play 3...g6 and have "fianchetto-fun" if that's what you're looking for.
Below, white plays "typically" and actually lost an edge. Black's ...d5 and timely ...c5 provides excellent play. Don't look at your own plans only, also look at white's plans so that black's moves make more sense. Good luck!
Morphys-Revenge έγραψε:
This whole thread is clearly a joke. When the GOAT, The Boss, King Kasparov made a career by playing the KID then 'nuff said.....
Thank you for the kind reminder that you can play like Garrik... 
Jun 5, 2020
0
#52
ThrillerFan wrote:
ScottTheQA wrote:
I never said I was playing it right? I'm looking at legitimate data compiled from 4000 professional games from 1901-2020 and the KID has a 25% win rate lol
This account is my account I play on my phone/at work so theres a pretty fair amount of simple blunders
Actually, you are reading it all wrong! You do not base the validity of an opening on percent of wins. It is percent of points scored. You calculate that by adding the percentage of wins for the side you are calculating, and adding half the draw percentage to that. So if an opening has 36% wins for White, 38% draws, and 25% wins for Black, first off, this does not add to 100. You must have rounding errors. Let's say, hypothetically, that White scores 36.3%, 38.4% are draws, and 25.3% are wins for Black. Only now does what you have total 100%.
To determine Black's score, you take his win percentage and add half the draw percentage, or 25.3 + (0.5 × 38.4) = 25.3 + 19.2 = 44.5 Percent. This means a 55.5 Percent score for White, which is indeed 36.3 + 19.2.
Draws count, not just wins! You get half a point for a draw. If you score 2 wins as Black, 3 losses, and 15 draws, in 20 games. You did not score 10%. White did not score 15%. You scored 47.5% and White scored 52.5%
2 wins, 3 losses, and 15 draws is a FAR BETTER score than 6 wins and 14 losses (30% - FAR WORSE despite triple the number of wins!)
Even by the standards of your pompous idiocy... that is a crock of sh,t.
Jun 5, 2020
0
#53
@OP... If you study and play the opening enough, a tough opening, you can be in the W or D column. If you don't... you be in the L column. Play what you enjoy.
Jun 5, 2020
0
#54
LionWillCrush wrote:
ThrillerFan wrote:
ScottTheQA wrote:
I never said I was playing it right? I'm looking at legitimate data compiled from 4000 professional games from 1901-2020 and the KID has a 25% win rate lol
This account is my account I play on my phone/at work so theres a pretty fair amount of simple blunders
Actually, you are reading it all wrong! You do not base the validity of an opening on percent of wins. It is percent of points scored. You calculate that by adding the percentage of wins for the side you are calculating, and adding half the draw percentage to that. So if an opening has 36% wins for White, 38% draws, and 25% wins for Black, first off, this does not add to 100. You must have rounding errors. Let's say, hypothetically, that White scores 36.3%, 38.4% are draws, and 25.3% are wins for Black. Only now does what you have total 100%.
To determine Black's score, you take his win percentage and add half the draw percentage, or 25.3 + (0.5 × 38.4) = 25.3 + 19.2 = 44.5 Percent. This means a 55.5 Percent score for White, which is indeed 36.3 + 19.2.
Draws count, not just wins! You get half a point for a draw. If you score 2 wins as Black, 3 losses, and 15 draws, in 20 games. You did not score 10%. White did not score 15%. You scored 47.5% and White scored 52.5%
2 wins, 3 losses, and 15 draws is a FAR BETTER score than 6 wins and 14 losses (30% - FAR WORSE despite triple the number of wins!)
Even by the standards of your pompous idiocy... that is a crock of sh,t.
Nobody asked for an imbecile's response! Speak when you have something useful to contribute!
Knocking what is a true statement made by someone with a far superior rating to your own with some BS useless comment is not the definition of a useful contribution to the thread!
Jun 5, 2020
0
#56
Nobody is caring about a geek and his rating... what a bore. Answer the d,mn question... why do people play KID... when KID scores rubbish.
Jun 5, 2020
0
#58
LionWillCrush wrote:
And the KID does score rubbish. No debate.
44.5% is not rubbish for Black!
Somebody, PLEASE, Make chess.com intelligent again!
This has been a (failed) test of the Sarcasm Detection System!
Fischer played the King's Indian, Kasparov played the Kings Indian, Geller played it. Nakamura played it
I know, right? I was getting ready to point out u were joking til I saw ur reply.
Everybody that follows chess and it's history knows those geniuses of chess history played it. Not only played it sometimes but It was what they used to beat superstar players of history half to death with.