Kings Indian Vs Grunfeld - 2008/10/20 10:18Can somebody perhaps tell me why there is any reason to play the Grunfeld and not the Kings' Indian.
Let me explain why I am asking this and this is best done by a rough analysis of the two openings. Lets begin with the Grunfeld.
In the Grunfeld Black has good chances of winning the endgame. The Queen side pawn majority is good in most cases and even in the late middle game can have some influence. But For all other phases of the game Black will be under severe pressure. White can pressure him like a Venusian atmosphere and although his cracking is not exactly guarenteed it is very unpleasant. Some says that the idea behind the opening is to allow white to establish a pawn center which can be attacked and destroyed but this is utterly false.
While it is true that an unsupported pawn center can be destroyed the truth is that in the Grunfeld the white center more often then not is supported and all of whites pieces brings unpleasant pressure to bear on the center. It is this that would crack most Black defenses. White's pieces have freedom of movement and Black rarely knows where to put his pieces especially the Queen and Queen side Bishop. This only allows the white pieces to increase pressure on the center even more and harrash the Black pieces.
In addition white has a number of additional plans like a King side attack as well as a central pawn roller. Constantly look for exchanges that does not include a tactical counterblow, black has to survive all this, only to reach an endgame where he would have an advantage as long as it is a rook or king ending. The knight ending would result in a draw and a Bishop vs Knight ending(if he has the knight) would see him struggling.
In the Kings Indian on the other hand the center is closed and the black pieces are as free as the white ones. True Black has less space but this is a small to almost non existent problem. Black has number of strikes against the white position(although white does retain the advantage but this is true for all respectable openings).
My question however only comes into play when one looks at chess at the highest levels. Many Grandmasters prefer the Grunfeld over the Kings Indian. But it seems as if the Kings Indian is a better system. I know that somewhere I am missing something. Can anyone perhaps explain to me what it is that makes the Grunfeld a viable opening and why the presence of the Kings Indian has not yet retired it to the nearest gaveyard?
Post edited by: Fallen Angel, at: 2008/10/20 10:23 ---------
It is good to blame a tool. That way you spare the fool behind the tool.
Kings Indian Vs Grunfeld - 2008/11/14 06:09Answer: Maybe not just fashion...
I don't know much of the theory in the Grunfeld, but I have seen some very nice wins.
Polugayevsky-Korchnoi, Leningrad 1960 is a fantastic example of the creativity at blacks disposal in these lines. Here is what Kasparov says in M.G.P. vol III - "This game became a classic of the Grunfeld Defense, finding it's way into all the opening books. It turned out to be unusually sharp, and in this complicated, non-standard struggle Korchnoi simply proved stronger and showed himself in his full glory: when specific, calculating play began, his famous counterattack went into operation. It was under the influence of this game that, half a century later, I took up the Grunfeld Defence, including the variation with 7...Na6".
Nowadays it would seem that Svidler and Shirov are the main exponents of the Grunfeld (in the top 20), while Radjabov is the solitary torch bearer for the KID.
About your general question now fallen angel: Why at the top level is Grunfeld more popular than KID. "The Kings Indian is no longer fresh." I am paraphrasing, but Kasparov did actually say something like that. Now, if you consider, the sheer popularity of the KID after the two greatest players of all time used it as their main weapon against d4 (Fischer/Kasparov), you might understand the decline. It is simply too deeply understood by the top players. It is harder to find good novelties and to prepare against all your opponents pet lines. Having said that it cannot be said the Grunfeld is fresh eighter...maybe though, it's more fresh than the KID?
I have a strong urge to say that this is all just fashion though. For the last several years it seems, the Semi-Slav has been all the rage at the top levels. Who knows what will be next? Could the Kings Indian be due for a revival?
It sounds like you know quite a lot about Grunfeld theory; endgame strategies typical pawn formations etc. so I can't really argue with you about that. In fact you may be correct in your assesment that the KID is more playable than the Grunfeld. Why we don't see the KID at the top levels though, we can only speculate about.
Kings Indian Vs Grunfeld - 2008/11/17 08:05>it seems as if you know a lot about about gruenfeld theory.
Not really. I am in the process of building a repertoire for black and i have to make a choice which one of the two. I have played both a number of times and i have a rough idea of what endgames one can expect from the grunfeld. Also I have read up on the basic ideas and have tried to implement them in my games. That is why I know a bit. I just know a little bit about about the endgame in general but very little about grunfeld endgame.
The thing is I know that I have a very limited understanding of both openings. At first glance the grunfeld just seems inferior thanks to the pressure white can put on the center and thanks to the fact that black pieces seems to be tied to their post by this very pressure. But the fact that so many people do in fact play the grunfeld and get good results seems to indicate that I am missing something.
>Kasparov and Fischer I can only speak of Fischer here. Fischer's skill in piece play was of such a level, I believe, that choice of opening became second of importance. As you might know every opening embodies a strategic idea and the moves seems to express that idea. However look at Fischer seems to indicate that the ideas behind the openings were of little consequence to him. Instead he relied on sheer piece play to get something out of almost any sound opening. The greatest case in point is his victory over Spasky in 1972 when he played the Queen's Gambit for the first time of his life and did excellent. I think this was the sixth game of the championship. Another example stems from the fact that he was the only, or else one of very few, grandmasters that could get something out of the exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez.
The point is looking at Fischer to study validity of an opening is not the best idea because he could destroy any ofbeat opening even he sees it for the first time and get something out of a sound opening even when he played it for the first time.
>creativity at blacks disposal exactly my point. Like I said I would like to know what I am missing. I just know that the usual "attack the white centre and collapse it" is not true. I am not talking from opening knowledge now but from middle game knowledge. A pawn centre well supported with piece power cannot be collapsed. In fact the support lend by the pieces only lead to misery for the side who does not have a hold in the centre. So what is the apeal of the Grunfeld.
>Top level Maybe asking about top level play was a mistake. But at lower level hundreds of games are won or lost by sheer carelessness. The opening play a relatively minor role. At the highest level chess is highly refined and a victory can in fact be due to opening. But maybe I should change the question and ask of all the people who play Grunfeld or Kings Indian why they play either the one or the other. ---------
It is good to blame a tool. That way you spare the fool behind the tool.
Re:Kings Indian Vs Grunfeld - 2008/12/01 06:08I still like to play the Kings Indian from time to time so here's a move I like that comes out of the Bayonet attack. Petrosian - Gligoric 1970:
Here Gligoric played 14...Nd4! and after 15.gxf4, Nxf3+ 16.Qxf3, g4 initiated a strong attack on the white king aided by the two Bishops.
If you should decide on the Kings Indian be forewarned. The preparation is insane. There are so many good possibilities for white that it's hard to be prepared for many of them. You may find your self looking for a good reply to the Fianchetto variation, and end up transposing to - guess what? - the Grunfeld!
Re:Kings Indian Vs Grunfeld - 2008/12/01 06:14Take a look at this Grunfeld miniature from Shaked - Kasparov 1997. White can remain in the game with Qc2, but it will be a difficult fight ahead!
The position arises from the Grunfeld Exchange variation. Here Shaked played 20.Qf4? and Kasparov's reply forced resignation. But I thought the position was interesting. Black clearly has the advantage with superior develpment, stronger minor pieces, and a sizeable initiative etc. After 20.Qc2 things would have been drawn out longer.
While in general the white center is strong in the Grunfeld, it seems the idea for black is to bother his opponents development, and create chances for a counter attack. By playing c5 in this variation, black usually does not intend to capture on d4. he/she is waiting for white to make a move that will weaken the pawn structure or leave squares open to the black pieces.
In this game Shaked chose to resolve the tension in the center by pushing d4-d5, thereby opening the scope of blacks dark bishop, and leaving e5 available to the knight.
Re:Kings Indian Vs Grunfeld - 2008/12/02 13:41>fianchetto variation i am not sure if I sound like an idiot but I am not realy afraid of the fianchetto variation. i think white's best option lies in the classical exchange with the king's bishop developed to c4. This tends to tie the black rook to the defense of the f7 pawn. anyway i have not played the grunfeld that much so i am not all sure what I am talking about.
>leave squares open to the black pieces
that seems somewhat true yes. taking the classical exchange variation again... one of the biggest problems, for me, used to be the queen's knight. white can chase it with his pawn. recently however I began to understand why it is bad to form a pawn chain in the centre if you do have the option of keeping them abreast. i had a positional advantage against the computer but as soon as I moved one of my pawns forward I weakened the pawns, enabling black to attack them as well as giving the black pieces plenty of squares from where to harras my king and major pieces.
I think that for the time being I am going to rotate openings between the queen's gambit accepted and the grunfeld. i would lose many games but it will hone some kind of an edge to my piece play. after that i will decide. if i can get some form of decent play from the grunfeld then I might make it the main piece of my armory.
you sound like an excellent player. we should play a game or two. ---------
It is good to blame a tool. That way you spare the fool behind the tool.
Re:Kings Indian Vs Grunfeld - 2008/12/29 19:23The KID is a lot more thematic than the Grunfeld. This means its easier to make sense of it, less important to memorize lines. What it comes down to really: which pawn structure do you prefer? Then play that way.
Re:Kings Indian Vs Grunfeld - 2009/01/20 05:23Fallen Angel: If you'd like to play a game I'm on gameknot.com or chessclub.com - both under the same name: Boggled - These are the only sites that I play correspondence on.
I agree that the Kings Indian is more thematic, and maybe the KID has less to memorize as a result. However I think this is a mute point as both openings suggest a lot of memorization. Take the following position from the Petrosian variation for example:
Can you figure out blacks best move here? There are many attractive posibilities in this strategically somewhat complex position. Knowing the best move by rote in many lines is a must for the serious KID practitioner.
post new topic
