Looking at Kramnik's Games Makes Me Want to Play the Semi-Slav

He makes it look so effortless...

But I'll stick with the KID thank you...

The Semi-Slav is better! I'd much rather play 1.d4 if everyone played the KID.

If my opponent is at my level or below, there are very good chances he'll screw up the KID.  Fischer and Kasparov can make it work because they're brilliant... but without that brilliance you're often left in a positional hole you can't climb out of.  My $0.02

play 1.. a6

i dont get why everyone likes the kid so much, such boring positions to play.

Boring if you play it wrong.  Brilliant tactical melee if you play it right :p

Semi-slav is so good that there is White version of it, called Colle System!!

oh wait theres also KIA for KID lol...

I'd say Semi-slav for solid positions, KID if you want to win, not draw.

The KID is risky in some respects, but at amateur level it takes a lot more to lose a game than a suspect position. Nonetheless there are easier choices.

Slav is a good opening, but this requires alot of positional understanding, as this was not the same on some 1.e4 theories with many sharp lines.

i was talking about whites point of view.

The structure was closed and you have to be more on strategic decision, rather than tactical ones.

What it made so interesting is what Kasparov changed on the feature of 1.d4 lines, he made it so dynamically and he wins against top players on less than 40 moves on the opening that we say is closed one.

 There's a psychological opening played by Tony Miles against Karpov 1...a6 and he won the game!

This is also one of the good games by Miles.

I think that is a misconception about the KID. In fact, one of the reasons why in the closed structures black can often get away with ...f7-f5 is because of that g7 bishop. Normally, the best way to counter a flank attack is with an attack in the center -- well, when black plays ...f5, white has the option of playing exf5, and ideas like f2-f4 afterwards, trying to make holes in the structure. The reason why this is usually ok for black is because in sequences like exf5 gxf5 f4 e4 (or ...exf4), black's bishop is suddenly wide open, controlling squares that would otherwise have been weakened by black's pawn pushing. If that bishop on g7 were elsewhere, squares like d4 could easily become holes, and a white knight might go there and eye all the weaknesses created on the kingside. The bishop on g7 also makes the ..Nh5-f4 maneuver more attractive -- normally white would just chop off the knight with Bxf4 and double the pawns, but when black recaptures with the e5 pawn he makes his bishop very happy. This gives white a tough choice: allow the knight to sit on f4, or unleash the bishop.

A second point is that a lot of times the position doesn't become blocked anyway. Black has plenty of options where he takes on d4, and sometimes, if white plays strangely, this is a good response if he can get quick counterplay on the dark squares, against white's pawn on e4, or push ...d6-d5 to blast everything open. Depending on where the pieces are, black can sometimes use tactics to get these ideas to work, often resulting in tons of piece activity.

Even when white plays dxe5, and black recaptures ...dxe5, black's bishop may be bad, but the position is fairly closed anyway -- most pieces can be expected to be bad in such a scenario .

So the bishop on g7 is often in the background -- it prepares for future pawn structures that are likely to take place. White can of course try to avoid all possible pawn structures in which the g7 bishop thrives, for example, by not capturing on f5 and letting black close everything with ...f4 -- but it reduces white's options -- already the fact that white does not try to counter in the center, the most natural way to meet a flank attack, is a concession on his part.

In addition to Elubas's excellent comments on why the dark squared bishop isn't as bad as you think in the KID, it also serves another function, and that is to pressure d4...

Risky for who?  Nakamura when he plays it against Kramnik?  Perhaps so, but when a 1700 player like myself plays it againt other club players rated between say 1300-2000 then there isn't that much risk.

Face it, mere mortals aren't bound by the same constraints as super GM;'s.

Hard for most chess players to grasp.....TOP G.Ms play chess. The rest of us are making a big deal out of pushing pieces of wood around the board........

I'd like to see some Semi-Slav games. How about posting your favorite ones! Annotations would be appreciated.

Well you're looking at two completely different systems. The slav/semi slav (my prefered defense) leads to a closed positional game which is much slower paced. The KID however, is tactically involved and what i like to call a sharp defense. The KID was loved by the great David Bronstein, who managed to draw bobby fischer with this defense. So it has it's merit, however i would reccomend the slav to lower level players as the KID can leads to lines where white plays qxd8 and black cannot castle. Therefore, requires a great amount of positional theory and tactical.

In the exchange lines of the KID Black has already castled, so he replies to Qxd8 with ...Rxd8

Looking at GM games makes me think "hey, this is pretty logical, can't be that hard to find these moves"

Then during the game either lots of moves look good and I'm not sure about the move order or no moves look good and I'm not sure what to do heh.