What to play against 1. d4

Everyone interprets data differently.

I think what you’re showing proves the Bayonet Attack is a devastating retort to the KID.

This is why the Bayonet Attack is a mainline.

There is a correct and incorrect way to interpret data, though. I'll also demonstrate why the high-50s as a score is not indicative of "a devastating retort" to anything.

In the following position, there are over 10,000 games in the masters database:

The scores are as follows:

White wins: 38%

Draw: 39%

Black wins: 22%.

When calculating how well white scores, we have 38+(39/2) = 38+19.5 = 57.5%.

This line is obviously sound for black, it's one of the big mainlines of the Ruy Lopez. White scores similarly in the Bayonet Attack. Therefore, the Bayonet Attack is strong, but far from being a "knockout" variation against the KID.

@ Post #43

You just posted another example of a line being Knocked Out!

The Ruy Lopez is a Beast of an Opening!

It’s no secret that the Chigorin is struggling. Just look at that win rate. I never even payed close attention to it. Now that you mention it. I’m shocked.

Why do you think so many people change lines?

Look at the Berlin and how rapid its growth has been.

Win rates are not anything. That could simply be because of the players using the opening, not the opening itself.

I think you’re partially correct.

You can’t use Win Rates as the only Metric, but it does help.

In the Berlin starting position, white scores 56%. A two percent difference from the Bayonet. One percent lower than the Lopez line I posted earlier. Is the Berlin knocked out too?

Queens gambit

Yes!

Their are different variations in the Berlin.

Some of the variations in the Berlin starting position were considered knocked out!

People use to play bxc6 which is the knocked out variation vs. dxc6 which is modern Berlin Wall Endgame which is consider good.

Berlin Defense use to be considered a terrible/bad line.

Till the Ex-World Champion Kramnik restored the Berlin Defense reputation by playing it in a different way vs. Garry Kasparov in World Championship match.

Kramnik played the Berlin Defense in a different way vs. what contemporary players use to do.

I don't know about this win rate data stuff. I think the data is just bad. You are lumping all the games together and saying they mean something. In the data set you are giving equal weight to games played in a world championship match where the players have prepared their lines for months as you do for some run of the mill tournament where the black side may be using it as a surprise weapon. For the data to be reliable there needs to be some kind of weighted average that takes into account the level of preparation there is in world championship matches and high level tournaments such as Tata Steel or candidates.

*

There are other problems as well. Some games could be decided by blunders. Other games could be agreed to draws because of the tournament situation rather than the position on the chessboard. Really what you need to do is look at each and every game and make a decision what should have happened. Maybe black was better but lost. Maybe white was better but the game was agreed to a draw. Maybe computer analysis would change the assessment? That would be a lot of work though. It may mean going through thousands of games.

*

Also ideally what you want to do is only include the games of Kings Indian specialists in the data set to get the win rate data. I mean who cares if some random GM loses with it? Its only noteworthy if a specialist loses with it. There is a problem here though. The kings Indian specialists are some of the best players of all time. Three of them have been world champions.....Fischer, Tal, Kasparov. Ding has also been a KID specialist...although I'm not sure the last time he has played it. The data may favor the black side simply because how strong the players of the black side have been.

*

Also I think if you play the kings Indian, you are sort of inclined to give win rate data the middle finger. If you are looking for safe and solid you are probably playing the queens gambit declined. If you are looking for adventure you are more likely to be playing the Kings Indian. I am looking for adventure!

*

From a practical viewpoint....even if I were to accept that the win rate data were both reliable and represent a knockout, it just isn't relevant for a player like me. I played the Kings Indian for several years in the early 2000s. The so called refutations mentioned on this thread I barely encountered at all. In fact, I can probably count the number of times on one hand. I encountered them. The fianchetto line I saw just one time and I won. I encountered the classical line 3 times. I won just 1 out of 3 of these but the games I lost didn't have much to do with the opening. One was a G30 where I was in time pressure in a complicated position. The other one was a game against a cuban master where he outplayed me in a complicated position with chances for both sides. More typically what I encountered was the 4 pawns attack, samisch line or some sort of anti Kings Indian.

as a d4 player, i hate when my opponent plays either Owen's defense or king fianchetto. Both are difficult to counter considering the playing style of d4. but they're simple opening to learn, so highly recommended to frustrate d4 fanboys.