"... for those that want to be as good as they can be, they'll have to work hard.
Play opponents who are better than you … . Learn basic endgames. Create a simple opening repertoire (understanding the moves are far more important than memorizing them). Study tactics. And pick up tons of patterns. That’s the drumbeat of success. ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (December 27, 2018)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/little-things-that-help-your-game
How good is the King's Indian defense?
Sort:
Aug 4, 2019
0
#23
Optimissed wrote:
ThrillerFan wrote:
NotSmartacus1367 wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
NotSmartacus1367 wrote:
Hello. I have just recently heard about the King's Indian defense. It is a system where you will move your kingside knight to f3 or f6, push the g pawn up a space, and then move your kingside bishop to where your g pawn was. Lastly, you kingside castle. I am considering playing this more often. The question is, should I?
Instead of concentrating on openings, maybe you should quit sandbagging to drop your rating...
Why do you always point out the negative qualities in people?
He is not pointing out the negative qualities. He is pointing out the TRUTH!
If the truth happens to be negative, so be it. There are certain things that have more negative qualities than positive and so the negatives stand out.
The problem is, while IMBacon points out the truth and spills everything (like Elizabeth Warren), the rest of you sugar coat and redact the truth, blacking out a bunch of stuff to make it sound good, and then brag about how great you are, like Bill Barr, Moscow Mitch, and Traitor Donnie!
What is "redact"? Isn't (wasn't) Michael Jackson awful?
To redact is to modify via blacking out, like the redacted Mueller Report. Take the following as an example:
ORIGINAL STATEMENT:
Optimissed is not very good at talking on this forum about chess because he is stating that playing the Latvian Gambit is a smart idea.
REDACTED STATEMENT
Optimissed is ___ very good at _______ __ ___ _____ _____ chess because he __ _______ ____ _______ ___ _______ ______ is _ smart ____.
NotSmartacus1367 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
Is a sandbagging accusation comparable to a cheating accusation?
I was not sandbagging my daily games my friend, I just had too many on my hands and not enough time to complete them
My post was not intended as a sandbagging accusation. I was intending to pose a question to those who make such accusations. After all, aren't there rules about posting cheating accusations?
The King's Indian Defense (and attack) are both solid openings to learn and play. The King's Indian Defense is a great opening. It's the number one defense to 1.d4 for a reason. I play it and have had great success with it. Study both the classical line and four pawns attack(optional, but good to know).
Kasparov played this real good! A nice game also with a Queen sac for two pieces a pawn and activity.
But the last King indian I saw went like this. And I must say if even 2500 players have no clue of how to play this opening it must be rather difficult. Thats why I am much more happy with my Nimzo- Indian!
What I saw went like this and I had the crab my ear so now and then.
Feb 23, 2025
0
#28
if you want to develop in a way where you can get playable positions all the time, go for it. Your opponents are not at a level where they can exactly exploit your formation. Although i would recommend even more to play a system with 1.d4 2.nf3 3.g3 for the white side if you want something even easier that almost guarantees always having playable positions. This way you dont have to figure out what to do vs the big center.
KID is a curious defense in that its very friendly for weaker players since its borderline systematic and your opponents too weak to challenge it, and a good must win weapon for a master willing to learn it but its class players that might have it the worst since it at a high level opening with lots of theory to learn to not get in trouble . Not as bad as the grunfeld in that regard but stronger class players may need to learn A LOT of theory to stay afloat relative to their strength.
It's the best
A solid defence for attack, greatly safeguards the king and wins you the game
Not good by the standards of a few....
ACCORDING TO modern chess engines it gives White a .65 to .8 +/- advantage dependent on what var they play.
Makes sense... Black gives up the Center and puts his dark squared bishop on the a1-h8 diagonal where it is essentially out of the game on the queenside.
I wouldn't play it
It's an amazing defence, full of resources and there are many times hopeless situations that miraculously turn into a win. It's probably your best chance of winning against a very strong opponent.
If your name isn't Kasparov, Nakamura, and you have never appeared in the top 20 in the world, I really wouldn't worry about white being "theoretically" better (whatever that means), and those players still play it occasionally at the highest level.
Just my outlook on these things. =D
-Lukay