Play the Grunfeld Defence as Black its nice
Sort:
Not all players are aggressive. The Gruenfeld is quite barky from the getgo, which some chess players like myself wouldn't feel too comfortable playing. Calmer, more positional payers like myself would probably choose another Anti-d4 system like the Nimzo-Indian or Queen's Gambit Declined. The Gruenfeld chooses to hand white the center and attack it later, while the Nimzo-Indian chooses to stop white's plan outright.
but grunfeld is positional opening
who is the best players in grunfeld defence
KillerDinesh wrote:
at first glance I read that as the Garfield defense! LMAO
FunnyAnimatorJimTV wrote:
Not all players are aggressive. The Gruenfeld is quite barky from the getgo, which some chess players like myself wouldn't feel too comfortable playing. Calmer, more positional payers like myself would probably choose another Anti-d4 system like the Nimzo-Indian or Queen's Gambit Declined. The Gruenfeld chooses to hand white the center and attack it later, while the Nimzo-Indian chooses to stop white's plan outright.>>
But white's plan isn't always to dominate the centre with pawns. Since black has a lot of choices in the Nimzo-Indian, white often chooses to decline it by Nf3 and if white is more confident about it then s/he will presumably be acquainted with the different types of position normally obtainable, which carry with them different strategies. For instance, white's strategy may be to remain flexible and obtain better piece mobility than black. Fifteen to twenty years ago I used to decline the Nimzo-Indian as a matter of course, thinking that it equalised for black, because its complexities were pretty much beyond me, and now I prefer to meet it head on, often with the Samisch, where white gets the two bishops immediately and often gives up a pawn for the attack.
Back to the Grunfeld .... the Exchange variation, which is the one you're referring to, was analysed almost to death. Karpov was its main proponent. Kasparov preferred an early deviation with Nf3, which may be slightly unsound. They're both intensely theoretical so a player on the black side has to be booked up to over 20 moves. I just avoid it all and play either the Russian with Qb3 or something less aggressive such as an early e3 or maybe Bf4, both of which carry a considerable sting since black's game can be passive. The Grunfeld isn't for beginners, but then, neither is the Nimzo-Indian. The answer is probably to learn the QGD, where black follows sound principles of centre control and piece development.
But white's plan isn't always to dominate the centre with pawns. Since black has a lot of choices in the Nimzo-Indian, white often chooses to decline it by Nf3 and if white is more confident about it then s/he will presumably be acquainted with the different types of position normally obtainable, which carry with them different strategies. For instance, white's strategy may be to remain flexible and obtain better piece mobility than black. Fifteen to twenty years ago I used to decline the Nimzo-Indian as a matter of course, thinking that it equalised for black, because its complexities were pretty much beyond me, and now I prefer to meet it head on, often with the Samisch, where white gets the two bishops immediately and often gives up a pawn for the attack.
Back to the Grunfeld .... the Exchange variation, which is the one you're referring to, was analysed almost to death. Karpov was its main proponent. Kasparov preferred an early deviation with Nf3, which may be slightly unsound. They're both intensely theoretical so a player on the black side has to be booked up to over 20 moves. I just avoid it all and play either the Russian with Qb3 or something less aggressive such as an early e3 or maybe Bf4, both of which carry a considerable sting since black's game can be passive. The Grunfeld isn't for beginners, but then, neither is the Nimzo-Indian. The answer is probably to learn the QGD, where black follows sound principles of centre control and piece development.