|Jun-20-11|| ||Kinghunt: I have found this to be an incredibly instructive game for studying how to play against the King's Indian. White's use of the minor pieces to support the queenside advances are particularly worthy of study.|
|Jul-18-11|| ||qqdos: <Kinghunt> But see what Nakamura did to Beliavsky as White in their 2009 game, Amsterdam (Rising Stars) and to Gelfand in 2010!|
|Jul-19-11|| ||Kinghunt: Yes, there is no denying that black has a number of interesting ideas that are quite devastating if poorly defended against. But all the same, I hold that this system is the most promising one for white to try and win against the KID. But it is certainly a double edged weapon.|
|Jul-19-11|| ||DrMAL: As a d4 player the latest variations against KID are of primary interest and this one is a nice example. Like nearly every other high level game, the outcome has very little if anything to do with the opening. I play d4 for comfort, my progress in chess (anyone below perhaps top GM) comes far less from opening prep than positional understanding and tactical technique.|
This game and Gelfand vs Nakamura, 2010 depart with black's 16th move where 16...dxc5 or 16...Bf8 are both better than 16...Ne8 to the point where it may be considered an inaccuracy. White has a distinct advantage from here.
I don't think 18...h5 was very good either. 18...Bd7 right away or 18...Qf6 or 18...Nf6 back were probably better plans but it may not have mattered if black played 19...dxc5 instead of 19...Bd7 since now this idea is inconsistent and too slow. 21...b6 or 21...b5 was likely better than 21...bxa6 as well.
At this point white is quite far ahead with 22.c6 Bc8 and 23.Rb1 seems the best follow-up with 23.Nc3 maybe better than 23.Nab2 to 24.Nd3 played. But again black plays too slowly with 24...Nh4 instead of 24...g4 on the kingside. I will stop here, since the remaining choices have basically nothing to do with the opening, except to write 31...Qg6 was a big blunder.
|Dec-16-12|| ||PawnSac: <qqdos: <Kinghunt> But see what Nakamura did to Beliavsky as White in their 2009 game, Amsterdam (Rising Stars) and to Gelfand in 2010!>|
uh.. lets get a little perspective here. Nakamura and Beliavsky were both born in December, but Alex is 34 years older than Hikaru and He was a GM 12 years before Naka was born! When that game was played Hikaru was 23 and Akex was 57. Naka is on the way up, Beliavsky is on the way down. What difference does this make? A lot. Youth has a lot of energy, age has experience. BUT Alex doesn't work as hard now as in his youth. I have no doubt that Naka probably studied this game, and several others, AND worked on some improvements in the lines before they met over the board. Alex got caught in an improvement and then had to deal with Naka's youthful energy and creativity PLUS Naka has a very unpredictable playing style. SO.. the fact that Alex lost that game against Naka has NO reflection on the validity or soundness of the opening variation. After this game, now Alex is also better prepared for the same line.
|Dec-16-13|| ||notyetagm: Beliavsky vs D Solak, 2000|
<Kinghunt: <<<I have found this to be an incredibly instructive game for studying how to play against the King's Indian.>>> White's use of the minor pieces to support the queenside advances are particularly worthy of study.>
I agree wholeheartedly: this is the very best game I have *ever* seen in demonstrating how to play the White side of these <MAR DEL PLATA-TYPE> positions.