play against the kings indian?

  • #21
    pfren wrote:

    Also, I find hard to follow the FUD about the Avrukh suggested lines being "unsound". IMO they are just fine, it's just the analysis which is unsound (blindly trusting engine evaluation). The only suggested line which isn't good is a Grunfeld one, where Black holds his own very easily.

    ... If you feel that 8.Qd3 is refuted in some other way, feel free to comment- IMO it's just fine, Avrukh is right, and the engines are wrong.

     

    Regarding Avrukh's line... congratulations on a nice win, but that wasn't the line that people said gave black easy, stale equality. This wasn't computer analysis, it was human analysis. Perhaps backed up by computers, I don't know. One of the people commenting on this was your fellow countryman, Nikos Ntirlis.

    The line that is supposed to lead to equality is below. Avrukh discusses the variation on pages 409-411 in Grandmaster Repertoire 1.d4 volume 2.



  • #22

    Well, white is better after 14...Kg7(!) 15.a3.

    Please allow me to keep my analyses for my next CC opponent, OK?

    The impression was made due to a high level correspondence game.

    ...but I can assure you that there are quite a few substantial improvements, both sides involved.

  • #23

    Shucks!

    I was looking forward to a good theoretical discussion here.

    Anyway, I never said it was refuted. But the readers can see what I said. Perhaps you and I could play an unrated King's Indian correspondence match here some time?  I'll defend this side for Black and play the white side of the Classical against you. 

  • #24

    The classical is "refuted" already. Tongue Out

    I mean the so-called "Mamedov variation", where after weeks of analysing I have not been able to find something concrete for white. At least, I think the advantage I've found in the aforementinied game is more substantial.

    Maybe Ding Liren's provocative 11.Nc2!? double pawn sacrifice, but this ain't sure at all.

    True, KID players normally don't like to enter unassuming lines like Mamedov's, but Black's position is quite sound, and with sane play he should split the point without trouble, methinks.

  • #25

    I agree with both of the masters. Those seem to confuse black in the opening at lower levels. I personally like BE3 and avoid the 9. NE1, ND2 as black seems to know pretty well and seems to be memorized 20 moves deep whereas the BE3 kind of crosses black up expecting the NE1 variation in the KI.

     

    Saimisch (mispelled) is good also.

  • #26

    The yugoslav attack. 

  • #27

    For those who are interested, here's the Ding Liren-Mamedov game. Riazantsev(+2700) played 6.h3 e5 7.d5 in his game against Mamedov a couple days ago (2013). I don't know if we can read anything into his choice. The game was interesting but ended in a draw.

    The notes are based on comments made by Andrew Martin.

  • #28

    There is no stopping the KID. You cannot stop it's breathtaking attack.

    Resistance is futile

  • #29

    IM=ignorant monkey in the case of pfren,

  • #30
    MalSwanOfZaga10 wrote:

    IM=ignorant monkey in the case of pfren,

    please go away, your comments are not helpful.

     

    Pfren takes a good chunk of time to share his book of knowledge with us (mortals by comparison). I hardly believe that just because you have such a perspective of him, that we should view him like that. True, he may not be the nicest fellow, but pfren is always helpful.

  • #31

    @ Randomemory: Please let him express his stupidity in any way he pleases. It seems that he thinks talking like that will make him a man, or something close to that...

  • #32

    Something close to that:

  • #33

    intriluity i believe, my good men

or Join

Online Now