What's better KID or Q.G.D

*an automatic

Who cares

The KID is one that does require a lot of study and understanding of how to play it. Beginners and even intermediate players will likely have trouble trying to play the KID simply because the concepts and strategy are rather complex for black. For example, a beginner will likely not know how to handle the massive pawn center and I've seen many crumble under the Four Pawns Attack line.

I'm in the mix between Club player/ Intermediate and have good success playing the KID. I played d5 at first and then studied the Nf6 reply to 1.d4 and studied the Nimzo Indian/Queen Indian and KID, and the KID is one of my most studied. I've come to know the Bayonet variations and the Orthodox (Ne1) variations like the back of my hand, lol. I'm studying the Four pawns attack at the moment, which is probably the most diffucult for Black.  

Obviously study will be effective in learning it Although, you would probably then know that playing Black is no easy task, even knowing the main lines etc. It is rather dangerous in that a slip-up can lead to a rather unfortunate ending...

The King's Indian is a sharp and dangerous opening that requires a lot of dedication and study to master, from what I've heard. 

On the other hand, The QGD or the underrated but perfectly sound QGA are what you should stick with if you're comftorable with them. 

If you must win the KID is better. If you must not lose the QGD is better.  IMHO 

I used to play the Grünfeld a a while ago but stopped when I realized it wasn't really an opening for someone my level.

+1

I feel like this sums it quite nicely.

 Yeah, it can become a struggle at points, and the KID can become a rather double edged postion

Just my personal story that may or may not be relevant to anyone else:

I learned QGD first, and I ended up hating it so much that I started to consider resigning anytime someone played 1. d4.  I either sat stuck behind my pawn wall, frustrated and impotent while white danced around merrily, or I picked the wrong time to try to break open the position and got my face melted.

Finally, I decided to give KID a try, and it was lovely. Pure bliss. I enjoyed the positions that resulted, and the right moves felt very intuitive. I'd frequently play a game and go back later to find out that I was playing the book moves deep into the game without even knowing it. 

So I guess what I'm saying is: Give both an honest try and see what happens.

Like hell I can't attack forever. I'd rather lose than defend.

It IS very easy. All you do is attack on the kingside. Remember that beginners usually have difficulty formulating a plan. That's why having a plan to only attack the King such as found in KID or Colle(-Zukertort) can be very effective.

If you are thinking about adopting KID and leaving QGA, remember this:

Chess is a draw, but usually GMs need to avoid it, and one way to do this is to achieve complex positions. Most of the time, complex position means theoretically INFERIOR position. KID --> Gruendfeld --> QID/QGD/QGA, pick your poison.

KID is often effective at low level because the plan is simple: attack the kingside, and the antidote is not that simple: counterattack at the QUEENside (which is less important than Kingside) and never let yourself running out of tempo to defend the kingside (best is to do it with minimal resource/tempo).

At higher level, defending the KID is much more difficult than refuting it. At low level you have to "get" the feel how to play the opening, then day by day you will know better and can play better and become stronger and soon you will meet more opponents that can break down your defense, and you feel like have to change your defense (same issue with French players).

Learn from Kasparov. When he used the KID, the defense is not exhaustively analyzed. At the end of his career it was. And when he has to face a weak variation enforced by White, he transposed to Gruendfeld (...d5). Gruendfeld is theoretically stronger than KID but is still considered complex by many masters.

If only Kasparov didn't resign from chess, may be he would have also played the QID (actually he should have played it before KID). I believe that QID is like a Caro-Kann, has "power" to raise expert rating to master ( even GM) level.

My favourite is QGD, and it is the first opening I will have confident in playing (seriously) against a much stronger opponent. But I adopted QGA because imo in my level it will give me more winning chance. It is in line with my playing strategy (at sub 2000 level) at least for White: play the best opening by test (1.e4), take initiative, gain space, add pressure, find tactical chances or win an easy endgame.

QGD.   Tartakower system.

But pick either KID or QGD and spend 2 or 3 months playing it as your exclusive response to 1. d4 so you can build your databases and see if you like it.  

I switched from Grunfeld to Tartakower System three months ago. Have just now gotten my databases where I want them (1 for analysis and lines in it I want to play, 1 of about 20-30 exemplar annotated master games, and 1 of just all my games playing it as black).  

It's very solid. But there aren't a many opportunities for a kill shot, IMHO. 

I don't like KID, it's sort of in-between the extremes.

Grunfeld is the better one if you really want to be extremely hypermodern, again, personal choices, I don't think it makes much sense to ask which one is "better" without asking anything else.