Who plays Grunfeld and why is it awesome?

Its ok i have a lot of time and I like to look at chess games.

Another super interesting game. Navara as far as I can tell attempts to blockade the centre and play on the kingside with moves like ...e5 and ...f5 eventually winning the exchange.  Perhaps its just one of a number of plans at blacks disposal?

Black has a huge choice of continuations after 10. 0-0

See if you can find Navaras winning move

It's nice to see somebody actually interested in learning a new opening, instead of the demented obsession with the first ply which has become typical of this forum. Afraid can't help you much though because Grunfeld has never appealed to me much. Awhile back Rowson wrote a decent book which highlighted the different plans available, maybe something like that would interest you

Avrukh wrote a TWO volume monstrosity to cover the Grunfeld in the Grandmaster repertoire system. Yes. Avrukh is known for writing extremely dense opening tomes that cover almost every main idea. But the two volumes for the black side of the Grunfeld is massive even by his standards. By comparison, he covered the Classical Slav repertoire for Black in under 500 pages. 

Sure, you can play any opening with just a smattering of information. And there are Starting Out books and other short intros to the Grunfeld. But Svidler actually does know what he's talking about. Taking on the Grunfeld is a massive task for an amateur tournament player. 

If you're just playing casual chess online, or if you're only interested in correspondence chess, it should be fine. But for most tournament players it's not practical.

At the same time, theory is a two-way street.  White needs to know the theory just as much as Black.  If White doesn't know the theory, then he (likely) won't play the critical moves and Black is fine.  If he does know the theory, great, he put in just as much effort as Black.  Granted, he only needs to know his chosen variation whereas Black needs to know everything, but that's true for all Black openings in general.

This leads to a paradox of sorts.  If most amateurs don't play the Grunfeld because of the theory, then most White players should face it less and thus study the theory of the opening less, meaning they are less prepared for it than other openings, meaning that more Black players should play it.

The Gruenfeld is busted in the main lines.

Not fully, but almost.

Top engines score 70-80% with white there.

The KID is much sounder.

, that wins the most predicatable post of the day award, from the closed position troll.

@SmithyQ, not at all! The problem of the Grunfeld for Black is that White need only specialize in one  of many very different systems while Black needs to be prepared for a whole array of possibilities.

There are quite a few dangerous variations in the Exchange Variation, but White can also play in a completely different style in the Fianchetto System, in the Russian System, in the Classical (Bf4), and other lines. White doesn't get a big theoretical edge in any of them. But if Black isn't prepared, they can all be lethal.

3...d5 is TOO early and a big mistake.

Ceding around 15-20cps evaluation advantage at least.

Add to that the 15-30cps first move white advantage, and, with optimal play, the Gruenfeld is ON THE EDGE of losing for black.

Not quite, but almost.

Troll or not troll, 3...d5 is a bad move and one day, with much stronger engines and deeper analysis that will become evident.

Do people really think all openings could be equivalent?

Thank you for your kind sentiments its very much appreciated. Will check out the Rowson publication for sure.  I actually really like the games and positions that results.  I think its their double edged quality, one false move and someone is walking the plank into shark infested waters for sure.

Please behave yourself Lyudo.  I am not a computer.  I do not think or play chess like a computer.  I am human. A 10-30 cps means nothing to me, absolutely nothing.  Plans and conceptual ideas though I find very interesting.  As I will not be playing much against computers because I already know I cannot beat them I would appreciate some human analysis. 

The empirical evidence is that among humans its a perfectly fine and respectable opening leading to double edged positions which are very exciting.

I actually find it more rewarding to do my own research and try as best as I can to assimilate ideas from analysis of games.  At present I printed off 88 games in a line that I am interested in and will play through them with board and pieces, should take me quite a while but I will come out the other side hopefully with some ideas. 

I behave myself perfectly.

Conceptually:

3...d5, 4. cxd5 - trades semi-central c for central black d pawn, bad

4...Nxd5 5. e4 - gains tempo by kicking the black knight, bad

Black is playing black, bad.

3 small white advantages add up, bad.

Overall, a very neat conceptual framework.

I would abstain from playing the Gruenfeld, unless drunk.

Don't get me wrong, the Grunfeld can be tons of fun, and I bet most people automatically play the main line of the Exchange as White without much thought, at least in blitz. But if you're serious about playing the Grunfeld in tournament chess, it's going to take up a lot of your preparation time. 

It does have a nice balance  but there are certainly a lot of possible ways for white to go right from the get go .

Thats why i like it SmyslovFan it promises lots of fun

Ohhh Lyudo, really? Chess is just not that simple.  Yes we trade a central pawn for a wing pawn but what do we get in return, a weakened white queenside.  How this could have escaped your keen powers of observations and almost superhuman analytical skills I cannot say.

When I play the Grunfeld against myself I keep getting crushed, this cannot be good! gulp!