Forums
Forums

Is the King's Indian Defence refuted by stockfish?

Sort:
sassygirltebritish
Optimissed wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:

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 .

I just play the Classical as white and against a reasonably strong opponent I play g4, especially in the MdP variation. No heroics, just going for total control and if ...h5, then not g5 but h3 and if black opens the h file I can get the rooks and q off without any difficulty, either on the opened c file or the h file, which is what white wants. It's technically drawn but it's incredibly difficult for black because white can outplay black on the q-side using the better pieces (no bad bishop like black has on g7) and the extra space. I win a lot of games where I reach a technically even ending with about three minor pieces each. I discovered a move for myself, b3, allowing white to reroute a knight via b2 and white's options are too strong in most cases.

exatly its better to focuse on openings that dont make suffer such as the grunfeld nimzo or slav those are way more practical

Optimissed

I like playing against the KID. The openings you mention seem more solid for black. Maybe you missed out the QGD and the QGA?

sassygirltebritish
Optimissed wrote:

I like playing against the KID. The openings you mention seem more solid for black. Maybe you missed out the QGD and the QGA?

qeens gambit acepted is also good but not the qeens gambit declined

AngryPuffer

we can argue that the most challenging option is the othrodox variation and the queenside vs kingside pawn storm bayonett attack variation thing

whites attack is faster but that does not mean its an instant loss for black, he can typically still hold onto and endgame if he doesn't go wrong, alltthough white is still better

Optimissed
sassygirltebritish wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

I like playing against the KID. The openings you mention seem more solid for black. Maybe you missed out the QGD and the QGA?

qeens gambit acepted is also good but not the qeens gambit declined

I played the QGA but gave it up because it seemed too hard to win games in tournaments using it. I then played the Modern Benoni for years but have given it up because of all these modern systems aimed at stifling it. So I play the QGD, b6 variation, except in blitz where the Benoni is lots of fun.

Optimissed
AngryPuffer wrote:

we can argue that the most challenging option is the othrodox variation and the queenside vs kingside pawn storm bayonett attack variation thing

whites attack is faster but that does not mean its an instant loss for black, he can typically still hold onto and endgame if he doesn't go wrong, alltthough white is still better

I know the bayonet has a lot of backing but it seems to waste a move. I don't really see the point of b4 so I don't try to play it. You play b4 if you need to and the aim is to open the c file and get the heavy pieces off if you can. If black tries too hard on the k-side, of course you can often win a pawn on the q-side.

Optimissed

This is off-topic cos it's a QGA but this is probably NOT how to play the QGA. 5 mins game just played.

AngryPuffer

out of all my QGA games on lichess ive gotten alot of what you just showed, the best way i came up with is f3 with a follow up of Ne2 and Be3

Optimissed

I played 3.Nf3 for 30 years in the QGA and I switched to e4 two weeks ago or less because I was losing too much on time in 5 mins. It's made a big difference and if I ever play tournament or club chess again, I may switch to it.

AngryPuffer

ive always felt like 3.e4 was too risky due to e5 and the counter play black gets

 
Optimissed

I have a book on the QGA by Glenn Flear in Batsford's "New Ideas In" series, pub. 1994.

He doesn't discuss lesser variations and his book is useful but it's in the "illustrative game" format which I don't like and which returned to popularity in the 1990s. The best chess books were written in the segregated listing style of the early 80s, such as variation A1iic. That is, four layers of branching. Much harder to write books in that style and not so good for people not having a semi-photographic memory, which I did have. So I understand the return to the illustrative game type, which was looked down on by British writers in the 80s.

sassygirltebritish
Optimissed wrote:

I have a book on the QGA by Glenn Flear in Batsford's "New Ideas In" series, pub. 1994.

He doesn't discuss lesser variations and his book is useful but it's in the "illustrative game" format which I don't like and which returned to popularity in the 1990s. The best chess books were written in the segregated listing style of the early 80s, such as variation A1iic. That is, four layers of branching. Much harder to write books in that style and not so good for people not having a semi-photographic memory, which I did have. So I understand the return to the illustrative game type, which was looked down on by British writers in the 80s.

Your talking about 5 min chess not classical also in time list under 10 openings don't matter

sassygirltebritish
Optimissed wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:

we can argue that the most challenging option is the othrodox variation and the queenside vs kingside pawn storm bayonett attack variation thing

whites attack is faster but that does not mean its an instant loss for black, he can typically still hold onto and endgame if he doesn't go wrong, alltthough white is still better

I know the bayonet has a lot of backing but it seems to waste a move. I don't really see the point of b4 so I don't try to play it. You play b4 if you need to and the aim is to open the c file and get the heavy pieces off if you can. If black tries too hard on the k-side, of course you can often win a pawn on the q-side.

I agree but black is still always miserable in the l

Kings indian due to the lack of space Jeremy silman talks about the importance of space in his book reases your chess I think you should go ahead and read it or buy it

sassygirltebritish
AngryPuffer wrote:

ive always felt like 3.e4 was too risky due to e5 and the counter play black gets

 

Not really if you play the right variations such as the samisch fianchetto variation or the fianchetto variations you'll be fone

sassygirltebritish
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:

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..

Yes but you want to get a decent game not a game where your constantly passive and suffering from lack of space read Jeremy silmans reases your chess he covers more on this

sassygirltebritish
Optimissed wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:

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.

Not really e4 might be winning

darkunorthodox88

chess openings have a way of finding a balance. Since right now only a handful of super GM's play KID as mostly a must win side weapon with black, over time, the elites will begin slowly forgetting KID prep as too few players bother to play it to be worth, memorizing multiple sidelines 25+ moves deep. and then a new generation will begin experimenting with it and get a few great wins which in turn ups the prep further.
but it seems the days the KID is a world champion staple or even a super GM regular are long gone.
they are also plenty of openings waiting for a nice revival . which have little wrong with them, but havent been "Adopted" by a super GM quite yet on a semi-regular basis. Its a pity chess is such a voguish hobby sometimes, because at the "mere" 2600 level, you can find GM's playing almost everything that isnt busted.
Another relevant point is that at the high level, you either go from breadth or depth. If you do decide to play an opening thats on the slighly dubious end (and by this i mean, agaisnt really prepared strong opposition you will suffer even if not quite busted, this is usually more common with the black pieces as white openings where you are clearly worse are rarer) you have to find ways to discourage heavy prep agaisnt you. 
one way is to play lots of sidelines within one opening. This way even if your opponent wants to book some critical line agaisnt you, he has to roll the dice since you may not play what he studies or he really has to double down and learn all your sidelines. Even, then you would include 1 or two mainlines which dont have as worrisome critical lines so if you really suspect prep work, you likely wont be too bamboozled. 
e.g ,imagine playing someone that knows, 6 sicilian systems really really well. You will reconsider learning 25 moves of 1 line, if they you only have 16% chance of encountering that one line! Of course this is not only quite difficult its often not possible. You are up to the mercy of the opening to allow enough sound sidelines to pull this of. Secondary openings especially, dont have that many objectively decent sidelines, so its not always possible. 
more common, is simply to play lots of openings. imagine playing someone that has 7 viable ways to start with white, and a handful of sidelines in some of them. If you knew they played 1.b4 would you learn 20 moves of possible theory to get a tiny edge when they can play almost anything else? nope. Maybe in match play, world championship style events etc but not in your average tournament. Heck not even in a norm tournament most of the time).

Optimissed
sassygirltebritish wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

I have a book on the QGA by Glenn Flear in Batsford's "New Ideas In" series, pub. 1994.

He doesn't discuss lesser variations and his book is useful but it's in the "illustrative game" format which I don't like and which returned to popularity in the 1990s. The best chess books were written in the segregated listing style of the early 80s, such as variation A1iic. That is, four layers of branching. Much harder to write books in that style and not so good for people not having a semi-photographic memory, which I did have. So I understand the return to the illustrative game type, which was looked down on by British writers in the 80s.

Your talking about 5 min chess not classical also in time list under 10 openings don't matter

Completely disagree, if I get you right. Knowing an opening back to front gives you an enormous advantage in 5 mins chess. Not in bullet though. No advantage to be gained there by playing any recognised opening.

Optimissed
sassygirltebritish wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:

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.

Not really e4 might be winning

1. e4 isn't as strong as 1, d4, 1. c4 and 1. Nf3, so that's doubtful!

Optimissed

In my tournament days when I knew people prepared against me, I still persevered with 1. e5 ...c5 2. Nf3 ...a6 on the theory that I knew everything better than the opposition. In those days I sometimes played the O'Kelly line with ...e5 but never considered that as strong as some GMs seem to think it is, because I encountered positional lines against it which cut out black's chances of winning entirely. More often I played my own line with Qc7 instead of e5, which seems sound. The main threat was always 6. Bg4 where black has to play e6 and accept doubled pawns. It's ok for black ... doesn't lose by force and is certainly unbalanced. The main reason for the 5. ...Qc7 move order is to save an entire move on the main line in the Paulsen/Kan where white supports the e pawn with the more positional Bd3 rather than Nc3, which gives black a great target. So black, not having moved the e pawn yet, after Nc6 Nxc6 dc, plays e5 in one move and fully equalises.