Tips against king's indian defense

Get a free ebook on the King's Gambit, full of tactics, over 300 characteristic opening puzzles:

https://www.amazon.com/Kings-Gambit-Tactics-Lyudmil-Tsvetkov-ebook/dp/B0BQYJ57Z6/ref=rvi_d_sccl_3/136-1707135-6820206?pd_rd_w=CpVPe&content-id=amzn1.sym.f5690a4d-f2bb-45d9-9d1b-736fee412437&pf_rd_p=f5690a4d-f2bb-45d9-9d1b-736fee412437&pf_rd_r=WW9ZZ21XJ5H03Q93GXWC&pd_rd_wg=0AEz0&pd_rd_r=8631705e-e8fe-4584-ad6c-443287aa74ee&pd_rd_i=B0BQYJ57Z6&psc=1

In the Mar del Plata where black plays e5 and then Nc6 against the Orthodox setup, black plays very aggressively, advancing all pawns on the kingside. It can be quite sharp. Some consider it thematic of the entire KID. Black may be willing to give up the rook on a8 to gain time.

I thought that the bayonet attack has been worked out to a draw in several lines.

tygxc did you notice you are the only person talking about correspondance chess or ICCF?

Did you notice that not a single one of the top 100 chess players in the world play correspondance chess or at least not seriously?

Correspondance chess hasn't been relevant since at latest 1995. Even by 1995 theory had already been worked out to a stage where they didn't really need correspondence chess to put it to major tests.

In the old days the highest levels of correspondance chess were seen as a noble pursuit, and used to be seen as a potential way of looking at the cutting edge of chess, just because of the amount of time that could be put into it. Top chess players almost never played correspondance chess. It was seen as a sort of way that somewhat competent chess players would use their raw brainpower to brute-force analyze so much that they might come up with something the real good players might use - which is what computers do instantly today. Ironically enough computers not only made correspondance chess worthless but destroyed the skill itself due to how you can use computers.

Correspondance chess these days or referring to "theory" gotten from it is just a joke worthy of wheeze-laughter. The person with the best computer and who always picks the computer's moves wins, it's a competition of computers and no sane or intelligent person is going to waste their time with it.

I think it's meant as a way to waste your time in the dumbest way possible.

@47

"the only person talking about correspondance chess or ICCF?" ++ ICCF correspondence chess is like science and it reveals the truth about theoretical questions.

"not a single one of the top 100 chess players in the world play correspondance chess"
++ They have no time for that: they are travelling and playing. That being said, the level of ICCF correspondence chess is far higher than the level of top level over the board chess.

"Correspondance chess hasn't been relevant" ++ It is most relevant for theory.

"by 1995 theory had already been worked out to a stage where they didn't really need correspondence chess to put it to major tests" ++ That is false. ICCF correspondence is the source of theory. They have ample time: 5 days per move. They use engines. They do not get tired. The do not take fright.

"what computers do instantly today" ++ No. ICCF correspondence players let their engines work 5 days/move that is far deeper than instantly.

"computers not only made correspondance chess worthless" ++ ICCF still has scientific value.

"destroyed the skill itself due to how you can use computers" ++ The skill to jockey the computers is another skill.

"The person with the best computer and who always picks the computer's moves wins"
++ No definitely not. If you think so, then buy a good computer, register for an ICCF tournament and always play the computer's move. You will lose.

"no sane or intelligent person is going to waste their time with it" ++ So all these ICCF grandmasters are insane? All those players who waste their time with blitz are intelligent?

"So all these ICCF grandmasters are insane?"

I wouldn't go that far, there's a lot of people doing a lot ridiculous things in this world with ridiculous beliefs. Let's just say they are totally irrelevant to the modern chess community.

"All those players who waste their time with blitz are intelligent?"

When you specify the word "waste" it's hard to argue they're intelligent.

The person who plays a few blitz games every week may or may not be intelligent, playing blitz games slightly heightens their chance of being intelligent in my view.

Like any game, chess is supposed to be about having fun, relaxing and maybe taking something you learn from the game into your real life. If you can't do that what's the point.

I saw Hikaru on a stream recently answering on why he doesn't want to play as much classical chess anymore saying "why would I waste my time on a stupid 7 hour game when I can play bullet in my home streaming, listening to good music" (slightly paraphrased but he used all those words).

This from the guy who's rated third in the world at classical. He does still play classical and of course it has to be taken in a certain context, but he still used those words. If you don't want to listen to me maybe listen to the 3rd ranked player in the world.

@putshort

One main here, one on lichess, but I'm thinking deleteing both and starting over

@tygxc

The problem i have with your suggestions is that they are based on engine and GM level games. Well I'm not on that level nor anyone commenting here 😂. Bayonet won't really offer me free wins nor will refute the king's Indians i face. Not to mention i castle right onto Black's attack while I'm pushing pawns in the queenside where one wrong push will mean CHECKMATE against me in the kingside.

Thanks everyone for your help. As I've said above I'm used to playing the saemisch set up/jobava set up (same but without c pawn having moved). I really liked the averbakh as it seemed practical to me and that's the most important for me.