Now my stats for Gruenfeld as Black (W-L-D) :
Total 126 games : 54 - 58 - 14 (42.9 % - 46 % - 11 %)
1. variation A 47 games: 16 - 24- 7
2. variation B 34 Games : 16 - 13 - 5
3. C 25 games : 11 - 12 - 2
4. D 7 games : 4 - 3 - 0
5. E 6 games : 1 - 5 - 0
6. F 2 games : 2 -0 -0
7. G, H, I, J 1 game each : 1 - 0 -0
8. K 1 game : 0 -1 - 0
I too like Gruenfeld while playing black. Two pawns on Q side against one is a good advantage for black !
The Exchange used to be the most popular choice for white back in the 80's at Grandmaster level. Was suggested it may actually refute the Gruenfeld. As a result, few masters played the Gruenfeld then.
Today, many GMs play the Gruenfeld with black. And almost no GM's use the exchange anymore.
Does anybody know why?
No idea, but the considerations of GMs are not really relevant for us.
The exchange limits black's options so it makes it easier to prepare for white. As white players, we don't want to get into too much intricated theory because we can assume that the defender will be better prepared (i.e. he plays that every d4 game, we do that only a fraction of times).
This consideration does not apply to a professional player of course, but if you have a full time job I wouldn't go into too much effort just to bust 1 defence out of a dozen. Unless you play it as black as well, of course.
This is my favorite openings that I play more than anything vs 1. d4. My result is 50-50 against 1600+, and more wins vs lower ratings.
Do you think it's easy to play it as white? It's not. NM already said Anand has played it vs Topalov.
Sicilian has much more theory than Gruenfeld. If Sicilian had 6 volumes, Gruenfeld would have only 2 volumes. But ppl like Sicilian without knowing that it's the most theoretical play.
The difference is the Sicilian is dynamic, exciting, and richly imbalanced whereas the Grunfeld feels... dull.
The difference is sicilian is e4 and grunfeld is d4.
People like the Sicilian for reasons i cannot understand...