|Sep-17-05|| ||tamar: 20 Na7! makes a pleasing answer to 19...a6|
|May-16-07|| ||suenteus po 147: <tamar> Great find! That was indeed an excellent reply by Keres.|
|Oct-19-07|| ||plang: Keres pointed out how illogical it was to play 4..c6 and then follow up with the recaptures 6..Nxd5 and 8..Nxc3. The result was a position similar to the exchange variation of the Gruenfeld with black a tempo down.
6..cxd would have been a more consistent response. Flohr may not have expected 11 Nxd4 but it gave white a solid lead in development. The weakness on c3 was a small price to pay for this. Keres felt that 15..Na6 was blacks only chance of obtaining a playable position. 17..Qxe2 would have been answered with 18 Nc3 with the idea of Nd5.|
|Dec-16-12|| ||ColdSong: What to say about this game's opening name? That's absolutely never a King's Indian,since the d7 pawn never comes to d6, and go directly to d5, a square choice a true King's Indian lover finds, in my opinion,and to say it politely, very inappropriate. After d5, that's a Slav Schlechter variation,and finally after Nd5 a kind of Gruenfeld.|
|Dec-16-12|| ||jussu: I'd call it Grünfeld right after 5... d5. Certainly not King's Indian, which is characterized by ...d6, among other things.|
|Dec-16-12|| ||Phony Benoni: In the Olden Days--like, say 1937--the Grunfeld was considered a variation of the King's Indian.|
That being said, this does seem a misclassification. Anybody concerned about it can look up the proper ECO code and submit a correction slip. (I'll even help you out; it should be D79.)
|Aug-17-13|| ||dchrist: 17... Rd8? may have been the key mistake. Without 17... Rd8? 18. Rd5 Rxd5 19. cxd5 opening the c file for the white rook, 20. Na7! would not have been possible. |
17... Nc7!? may have offered a freeing exchange. Freeing the light-squared bishop (with a b-pawn sac) could have left black with a freer game, down a pawn rather than a piece.