gruenfeld is actually very popular
Why is the Gruenfeld Defense not more popular?
Sort:
Sep 6, 2013
0
#3
Look at the position. White has occupied the centre, and is ready to launch a strong attack if black doesn't react activly enough. In the KID, a small mistake is often not that bad. In the Grunfeld, a small mistake can easily be a decisive one. And in the KID, black has all the fun in kingside attacks, but must allow white an objectivly slightly stronger queenside attack. It's much more complicated in the grunfeld. Here, the tactics simply flows from move 5, and both players can play all over the board.
In a small note: KID is rather simpel, the Grunfeld is a mess. But in the mess, black has excellent chances to equalise.
I couldn't agree more with your point....one small mistake and the game is over for black in the grunfeld....
i thought it was even together with the kings indian a favorite of fischer, but i was wrong according to grandmaster repertoire on amazon it was the benoni that was Fischers favorite
too many choices for white and many positions aren't all that intuitive
the problem is that you dont always get gruenfeld but its a cool opening
Yeah, it's almost mandatory that if one is looking for a grunfeld as black, they must be ready for a KID depending on white's moves early on.
jimmerstoopy wrote:
Yeah, it's almost mandatory that if one is looking for a grunfeld as black, they must be ready for a KID depending on white's moves early on.
how so
I should correct myself....it is not mandatory since black has the choice between playing the grunfeld or KID on move 3. Sorry, must be hung over today;)
It's hyper modern, and most coaches suggest that beginners play classicaly to get a feel for chess.
Would you say then that for those who want to get involved with less theoretical knowledge, yet remain in the hyper modern defense, they should opt for the nimzo or queens indian? I have spent so much time looking through the grunfeld web of variations and it seems nearly as rich as the Sicilian. It definitely is a hard one but I have noticed that every time I play a grunfeld, I learn something new about tactics.
jimmerstoopy wrote:
Would you say then that for those who want to get involved with less theoretical knowledge, yet remain in the hyper modern defense, they should opt for the nimzo or queens indian? I have spent so much time looking through the grunfeld web of variations and it seems nearly as rich as the Sicilian. It definitely is a hard one but I have noticed that every time I play a grunfeld, I learn something new about tactics.
I'm not sure of a whole lot of hyper modern openings that don't have a lot of opening theory... letting one side build up a big center is pretty dangerous unless you really know what you're doing, thus all the theory (most likely 
)
i mean come on you must know a lot of theory in every opening, 1 mistake probably means a losing game anyway.
the gruenfeld is looks pretty cool because all the activity if i misplay it as white against it.
But as a i said the most annoying part is that you dont always get the gruenfeld.
well im a chess beginner but that are at least my impressions
ViktorHNielsen wrote:
(...) In the KID, a small mistake is often not that bad. (...) KID is rather [simple], the Grunfeld is a mess. (...)
*cough cough*
Allow me a slight correction :
Beginners think that the KID is simpler than the Grünfeld, hence why they play it.
Sep 6, 2013
0
#17
I agree. Grunfeld is easier than kid. When two players know well kid, you will often get complex two flank play where it is impossible to know who will win.
Sep 6, 2013
0
#18
I like the Gruenfeld myself, but there are SO many lines for White. If Black doesn't know book and/or makes a slight mistake, he can easily get blown out of the water. Look at the first game of the 2010 world championship match between Topalov and Anand, for example. Anand plays 22 moves of preparation, misremembers and plays a mistake on move 23, and Topalov immediately destroys him. Roman Dzindzichashvili in his recent chess.com video on an early h4 in the Gruenfeld (he says it's junk) rightly observed that in the Gruenfeld, "Black has to know everything." Theoretically, it's great, but if you don't know 20-30 moves of theory in a bunch of different lines, you're playing with fire. A lot of other openings are more intuitive and "forgiving" - if you play an inferior move, you might get a worse game but you won't just get annihilated.
Sep 7, 2013
0
#19
Agree. I switched to something lighter because of that. KID is however a real jungle.Push pawns and charge...
QuantummKnight wrote:
To play the Gruenfeld correctly you need to know a lot of endgames, and it's pretty theoretical like people are saying already. It's easy to see how the KID with its potential for a kingside attack is more appealing to the club player :-)
Edit: Not saying the KID is easier to play - all openings require study. I just think a lot of players are drawn to its alluring promise of a kingside attack.
you got me there, it just looks so cool to charge the pawns and than mate.
but i always thought the gruenfeld is all about piece play and not endgames but then again you are probably the expert
It's more tactical than the KID; there's usually no blocked center to manuver around; yet, at the amateur level it seems to be rarely played-- I've never seen it against 1. d4 and maybe once or twice against 1. c4 ( by transposition). Seems like it would be a good complement to the Sicilian Defense ( in some variations). Why is the KID always the preferred defense?