Kings Indian Defense vs. Semi-Slav - Thoughts Requested

Hello all, 

I am writing this to ask for others' opinions regarding King's Indian Defense and the Semi-Slav.

Ordinarily I have always played the Classical Dutch against 1. d4 but lately in this past year I've become increasingly dissatisfied with the type of positions that I get in the Dutch and have become increasingly frustrated whenever I have to play against 1. d4 due to my lack of confidence in and my steadily decreasing comfort level with the Dutch. So I'm looking to completely learn a new opening to add to my repertoire against 1. d4 and I am now seriously considering learning either the Kings Indian Defense or the Semi-Slav. 

 

So my multi-part question and reason for this post is:

What do you think in regards to these two openings and/or which of these is "better" overall and in regards to factors such as (1) practicality or "solidness" as an opening to play either in club games or tournament games; (2) difficulty (i.e. a more difficult opening in my mind is one that is more theoretically-heavy/demanding); (3) attacking opportunities; and (4) any other thoughts about either or both of these openings either from your own experiences playing either or both of these or from what you have seen in others' games that might help me make a better decision.

I plan to try playing a little of both of these openings either way to get a better sense for myself, but it would still be very helpful to me to hear other people's thoughts as to my questions above, since what I can learn from a cursory exploration of these openings will be more limited than the potential insights I may gain from people here who have far more experience with playing the Kings Indian and/or Semi-Slav.

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and comments on this. 

 

I'm not sure either has significantly more theory than the other as they're both very theory-heavy (but maybe someone will correct me). Both allow white to choose the type of game that will happen (sharp or solid) so... for those 2 reasons IMO neither are very practical options.

Since you apparently like asymmetry, I guess you could go with the KID as 1.d4 d5 may not be to your liking in general... and ok, I suppose on average the KID lets you attack more often. Sure white can go for the exchange or fianchetto variations, but players who allow 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 typically aren't shying away from complications as they're inviting everything from a Benko to a KID to a Grunfeld etc...

... which is another issue you may have to face. 1.d4 f5 is the Dutch, but after 1.d4 Nf6 you'll definitely need something for 2.Nf3. As I said above, 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 is really throwing the gauntlet down, inviting black to play one of many different theory heavy defenses and not every white player is comfortable doing that.

By the way, entering a semi-slav via 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 may not be to your liking since it allows white to choose the super-stale slav exchange, so either way you may be starting with 1.d4 Nf6

You could also consider 1.d4, g3 Modern-Pterodactyl which will likely transposes to the KID (with less stress) but also  potentially to the Sicilian Dragon and Beefeater (you’re already familiar with the Dutch is a bonus).

The added flexibility, dynamism, imbalance, transpositions, counter play, transferable dragon bishop experience and relatively low theory were the attractions for me.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/32997590753

https://www.chess.com/game/live/36570632453

https://www.chess.com/game/live/39173391827

 

The East Indian Game deserves an honourable mention for being ambitious. You may get get that semi-Slav d5, c6 pawn structure or the more ambitious c5 in certain lines; again with the signature dragon bishop.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/44598551583

https://www.chess.com/game/live/45127167559

 

d5, c6 is definitely solid end of the day.

"What do you think in regards to these two openings and/or which of these is better overall"
++ Semi-Slav > King's Indian Defence
(1) practicality or "solidness" ++ Semi-Slav is more solid and more practical
(2) difficulty ++ King's Indian Defence is more difficult
(3) attacking opportunities ++ King's Indian Defence offers more attacking opportinities
(4) any other thoughts ++ Kasparov gave up on the King's Indian Defence and later played Slav

"I plan to try playing a little of both of these openings"
++ Bad plan. A little of both means none well and means twice as many losses.

Both the kings Indian and Slav have about equal amounts of theory and practicality. I personally have always been repulsed at the thought of playing a pure classical opening (the horror!) and hence I cannot speak for the Slav.

Instead I will sell you the Kings Indian.

The theory is not a problem. In the kings Indian, despite its reputation, you can steer the game into less theoretical waters if you do choose to.

This happens because of the lack of commitment of pawns and pieces, and each pawn structure also has multiple ways to handle the position.

For example, in the locked center positions, I prefer to play a quer strategical game with moves like …a5 and …Na6 instead of going ham with Nh5 and f5 and the like.

Additionally many structures are similar to a benoni (if you play c5), and you really can’t play the kings Indian without knowing the basics of the benoni structure. (This may or may not be a good thing)

As for attacking chances… They would be about equal. Both openings, like many others, suffer from “if white wants to be boring it’s boring, and if white wants it to be fun it will be exciting”. But safe to say that in the wild lines, both openings have their enjoyment.

Personally, I feel like the KID is characterized by more strategic moves and the Slav by more calculation. Again I don’t play the Slav, so I can’t really speak for it. If you have a very solid grasp of KID structure strategy, you will be successful with the opening even if you don’t know any theory besides the opening moves. This I can guarantee. 

I am very biased, I absolutely love the King's Indian Defense and these two openings almost seem like opposites to me. There for I leave it to you to answer this, are you a an aggressive fighting player, dying for initiative, or are you positional, wanting to grind out a slow but fine win?

I believe the King's Indian is far more aggressive. However if you do choose to study it, get ready for some intense theory like the Sicilian.

The Semi-slav is also a fantastic opening but you should understand you aren't fighting for the initiative with it, it is kind of like the London where you play very solidly and hope to outplay your opponent.

Overall two great openings. But I would definitely prefer the King's Indian, that is just my two cents

#6 that's not true, have you seen Shirov's "positional grinds" in the Semi-Slav? Almost all openings can be played either solidly or sharply by both sides and these two aren't an exception. I play the Semi-Slav to win!

I've tried saying this before, but I think I'll just show a game instead.

The king's indian doesn't necessarily have to be attacking. It can be positional, too.

Optimissed is right when he says there's shuffling and a lot of build up, and that the semi slav has more straightforward plans. 

Personally I feel like such types of positions limit how I can play, as I like to play creatively, even if the moves themselves aren't sound. But at least there's not much wrong you can do in the semi-slav.

 

Both are littered with theory.

The Semi-Slav it is know the first 25 moves or die, basically.

KID, the line with 10.Be3 and 13.Rc1 is a problem.  7...exd4 or 7...Na6 are better these days than 7...Nc6.

 

Sounds like you played the Dutch with the wrong approach.  I play the Stonewall myself, but I do not go into the game with intent to play the Stonewall.  Stonewall and Classical should be last resort.

After 1...f5, 2...Nf6, and 3...e6, If White allows it, Black's next move should be 4...b6 or 4...Bb4 if d4, c4, Nc3, and Nf3.

It is ONLY if White beats you to the diagonal that you play the Classical or Stonewall.

1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3.  Now 4...d5??, 4...d6?, 4...Be7, and 4...Bb4! Are Black's options, and you see which one is best.

 

1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 e6 4.e3 b6!

1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.e3 b6!

 

Learn the Dutch like it is meant to be, don't just memorize the Classical.

Kings Indian will be more similar to the Dutch than the semi Slav. If you want something different, semi Slav.

#14 you can't wing it at all, even if White doesn't know theory (which is unlikely) the Meran is still extremely dangerous and Black has to be more careful in general. Knowing that you have to play e5 or c5 at some point isn't enough

You can (if you're willing to put in the work) consider having both in your repertoire.

Play the KID sometimes. Play the Semi-Slav other times. This way, your learning curve will be longer, but you'll become a stronger and more versatile player in the long run ...

semi slav is an easier scheme in comparison.

I quit the KID because of the 10.Be3 line

After 10...f5 11.f3 f4 12.Bf2 g5, the move 13.Rc1! I find to be a major problem.  White intends to sacrifice the pawn with 14.c5.

 

13...Rf6, 13...a6, and 13...Ng6 I find to all be unsatisfactory.  If not for 13.Rc1, Black would be fine.  For example, I see no problems for Black after 13.a4 (the "main" line if there is such a thing as a main line here).

Thank you everyone for taking the time to respond to my questions. You've all certainly given me a lot to think about.