Beginners see an engine evaluation on move, I don't know, 8, and think it means something.
The only real evaluations are win and draw... and so when you explore openings more deeply they'll either tends toward win or 0.00
By exploring deeply I don't just mean letting it reach a high depth, I mean putting the moves on the board... sometimes for dozens of moves.
Nearly ALL openings tends towards 0.00 with proper analysis -- but this means very little to human play.
Beginners see an engine evaluation on move, I don't know, 8, and think it means something.
The only real evaluations are win and draw... and so when you explore openings more deeply they'll either tends toward win or 0.00
By exploring deeply I don't just mean letting it reach a high depth, I mean putting the moves on the board... sometimes for dozens of moves.
Nearly ALL openings tends towards 0.00 with proper analysis -- but this means very little to human play.
Therefore, chess is a draw with best play.
Well, or it's just that high level players (engines) that are equally skilled will draw against each other in spite of "high" evaluations that occur due to incomplete methods of evaluating early positions.
I like different arguments for chess being a draw such as comparing the drawing margin of endgames to the advantage of the first move, and also noting common elements among zugzwang positions and then noting the opening position has none of these elements.
who cares about some deep theory and stockfish opinions.. you really doesn't need to play a good opening to be good in chess..
and KID is even one of the better openings what you can play as black I believe..
It helps a lot if you know your openings. Saves a lot of time and energy working out openings, so opening knowledge wins you many games.
knowing openings doesn't mean playing a good one.. you can play opening well even when stockfish doesn't like it.. and also if your theory is twenty moves deep and your oponent will play different first move I don't know much about the time you have saved..
#40
This says nothing about the soundness of the King's Indian Defence.
12 c5 is new but bad.
24 Rg5 and 26 Qf7 play for the loss.
Someone should tell you this early so you know... If an engine says an opening is +1 or -0.8 or something like that it doesn't mean an opening is "refuted" because you have to consider the depth level of the engine as well as human capabilities especially when you're employing the opening against amatuer players. Stockfish can destroy the King's gambit but when 2 humans play it both sides have good chances due to the double edged tactical nature of the position (which is irrelevant to engines since they won't miss a tactic pretty much ever)
I think this basically comes down to semantics and what you consider what the word refuted means as it applies to chess openings.
I consider the Kings Gambit to have been refuted but that doesn't mean it's unplayable. That's honestly the case with most openings.
Look at Hikaru and his Botez Gambit Speedrun. He can sack his queen for a minor piece and still beat 2400s lmao
This game was played recently, between Stockfish15 and LCZero:
As you can see, Stockfish 15 (+NNUE) was unable to crack the King's Indian Defense.
Well, the first nine moves of this game are a known line, the notorious Kramnik 'Bayonet' line that frustrated Kasparov. My point is that I don't think Stockfish coincidentally played these exact moves -- it's been programmed with an opening book, and probably not just to move nine. The idea of playing for a 'win' is not necessarily being represented, here. I note how early the queen rooks are exchanged off -- not a good sign, if you believe that White's game is queenside pressure. In any case, to be clear, I don't mind skepticism about claims that Black loses by force in the King's Indian.
It's interesting to see this too, because I know that Black is the famous 'alpha zero' google project, a computer program, but not simply a program to 'play chess' -- it's a program to learn to play chess, to teach itself and get stronger, day by day. How it chooses its moves is not in the code -- it programmed itself in a mysterious evolving way. Which might sound farfetched, I'm just saying this is from the depths of Google A.I. research, interesting stuff. Best known as Google's 'Alpha Zero', if you want to look it up.
Why is it even called indian because I don't think they even play chess in India
Chess was INVENTED in India.
Why is it even called indian because I don't think they even play chess in India
There was (still is?) a variant of chess played in India which involved slightly different rules from the Western chess that we play today.
One of the rules was that the pawn can only move one square at a time - no two-square pawn moves could be made in the opening.
From this, a lot of "Indian" openings arose, in which the player only moves their pawns one square forward. Example:
A "King's Indian" structure.
A "Queen's Indian" structure ...
And so on ...
Here is the thing, defenses like KID and Chigorin and some french defenses are amazing, if you looking to play a game where the player with fewest errors wins.Even very strong masters mess up these positions all the time but our super engines can collect those small inaccuracies.
But the KID in particular had a specific effect on the weaker engines,, their search horizons often didnt understand how the kingside pawnstorm was eventually lethal. Once stronger engines accounted for the positional oversight, it seems black ultimately limps to playing for a draw with best play. There was no "Tricking the engine" into playing inaccuracies. Black will try to attack but since White's attack is more sound, will switch to arduous defense and hope for the best.
But is this really anyone's surprise? if the KID attack was established as objectively successful, no one would play it as white. Fischer and Kasparov's (earlier) contemporaries coudnt refute but players like krammik and Korchnoi started revealing ways to de-fang it. Now the de-fanging has been perfected.
the kings indian is refuted as after theory ends i the three best variations of the kings indian such as the samisch or the fianchetto variations white is always slowly crumbling bkack to peices
So yea, not currently fashionable at the world champion level, but I promise you it's fantastic against 99.99 percent of players. Good and easy system.
your funny no the kings indian is simply not trust worthy for black in modern time controls such as classical or 30 minutes or more white is always on top since variations such as the samisch kings indian and the fianchetto variations white is slowly crumbling black peices since black simply has barely any room to move their peices its better to play something else such as grunfeld or nimzo since theirs practical chances and the engine doesnt think its completely losing and besides kings indian type positions such as the samisch or fianchetto variations are almost if not completly winning dont play the kings indian
i recommend not trusting the computers analysis when it comes to openings
the kings indian is refuted as after theory ends i the three best variations of the kings indian such as the samisch or the fianchetto variations white is always slowly crumbling bkack to peices
Perhaps if Black doesn't know what he's doing. In capable hands, the King's Indian holds. It's not always easy, of course. It's not a dry, symmetrical defense. Instead, expect a King's Indian battle to be difficult and imbalanced, where one or both players might find themselves teetering on a knife's edge. It's much like the Sicilian, in that regard.
This is why the KID attracts adventurous spirits.
most openings dont lose advocates because they are busted. That may be true from a gods eye perspective for a lot of gambits, a few oddities like some benoni sidelines and specific variations in a lot of opening lines, but this is the exception.
KID has gone the way of the sicilian dragon. The engines have effectively neutered them. These once crazy openings will always have their fans, defending them to death ,proving they are not refuted, and you can limp for a draw in x and y way. and only be down 0.8.
i invite you to check super theoretical top games with engines on the KID and you always see the same two patterns. Either black gets into a crooked position where the big wing attack he likes is not possible in which case, he is just worse (but not quite lost) or you get the big pawn storm race and like 4-5 moves before the true attack begins, black needs to re-group and focus on defense effectively proving his plan is too slow, and he is hoping to limp into a draw
make no mistake, KID is super playable at almost any level .
Not an engine liked it!! Its well used on indian schools and in forgotten places where the other ideas are not. Take that pawn and break that sh.. structure of headachers
Here is the thing, defenses like KID and Chigorin and some french defenses are amazing, if you looking to play a game where the player with fewest errors wins.Even very strong masters mess up these positions all the time but our super engines can collect those small inaccuracies.
But the KID in particular had a specific effect on the weaker engines,, their search horizons often didnt understand how the kingside pawnstorm was eventually lethal. Once stronger engines accounted for the positional oversight, it seems black ultimately limps to playing for a draw with best play. There was no "Tricking the engine" into playing inaccuracies. Black will try to attack but since White's attack is more sound, will switch to arduous defense and hope for the best.
But is this really anyone's surprise? if the KID attack was established as objectively successful, no one would play it as white. Fischer and Kasparov's (earlier) contemporaries coudnt refute but players like krammik and Korchnoi started revealing ways to de-fang it. Now the de-fanging has been perfected.
no not from ahuman standpoint is white plays the right variations such as the fianchettor or samisch variations black has no attack and white is slowly improving their position
This game was played recently, between Stockfish15 and LCZero:
As you can see, Stockfish 15 (+NNUE) was unable to crack the King's Indian Defense.
I believe the KID is likely a draw with perfect play from both sides. But in OTB play, black sometimes has to make harder practical decisions.
That doesn't mean it's refuted, though - it just means that it's sometimes sharp and treacherous. The same can be said of the Sicilian.