|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Mar-01-09 |
| ILikeFruits: kid...
is not...
an adult... |
 |
| Mar-01-09 |
| chessman95: I thought the KID was initiated after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7. If this site is correct and it's initiated after only 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6, then is the Grunfeld classified as a branch of the KID? I don't think this site is right. |
|
Mar-01-09
 |
| blacksburg: this nomenclature stuff is a little murky, always has been. the term <indian> refers to the fianchettoed bishop, AFAIK. thus <king's indian> would refer to a system with g6, Bg7. and a <queen's indian> would refer to a system with b6, Bb7. the term <gruenfeld> doesn't apply until black plays ...d5. for example, after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 if black plays 3...d5, we have a <gruenfeld>. but if black plays 3...Bg7, then white plays 4.e4, preventing ...d5, so then we will have a <KID>. in the position after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6, if you have to call it something, <KID> would probably be the most appropriate, because black will play g6 and Bg7. but of course, this position could become a <KID>, a <gruenfeld>, it could even become a <sicilian dragon>. <I thought the KID was initiated after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7.> this is the usual <KID> move order, but what if white plays 4.Nf3 instead of the usual 4.e4? then black has the option of 4...d5, and we're back into a <gruenfeld>. confused yet? i am. i give up. |
|
Mar-02-09
 |
| ganstaman: The name "Indian" does mean "fianchettoed bishop" as the Nimzo Indian and Bogo Indian do not feature that most of the time. The ECO code E60 is for KID games that start 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 and do not continue to E61 (3. Nc3) or to E80, the Grunfeld. This is just like ECO B00, which is uncommon king pawn openings. It is defined by 1. e4 followed by something other than what you find in other ECO areas. So if you go there and see 1. e4 above the board, you shouldn't think that all games that start 1. e4 are classified under B00. |
|
| Mar-02-09 |
| chessman95: It is true that the term "indian" doesn't mean a fianchetto with a bishop. Originally, the term meant any opening after 1.d4 that did not continue 1...d5. It was said that Europeans learned openings after 1.d4 other than 1...d5 while in India, so they called those openings that. I guess it's kind of like the king pawn openings being divided up into 1.e4 e5 (open) and 1.e4 not ...e5 (semi-open). Nowadays the term "indian" opening refers to anything after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4, because that is the main branch of opening theory in the queen pawn games other than the Queen's Gambit and some other minor openings. |
|
Mar-03-09
 |
| Willem Wallekers: This is what I think I know about the term "Indian".
It refers to 1. d4 Nf6 (not 1 d4 f5, that's Dutch).
These openings were "modern" and became quite popular in the 1920's.
Problem was they had no name. As most openings were named after countries a wellknown chess player at the time (Tartakower if my memory serves me well) jestingly proposed to call them Indian because he sensed an exotic flavour in them.
I don't believe Europeans learned them in India, because Europeans in India were mainly British and I know of no Brits playing an important role in introducing these openings. |
|
| Mar-03-09 |
| MaxxLange: <Willem Wallekers> this is correct, according to what I have heard. It was kind of just a little joke that caught on. |
|
| Mar-03-09 |
| chessman95: Maybe you're right. I remember reading it in an opening book I got on Indian Games, so I just assumed it was right. By the way, I'm looking for a good surprise weapon against 1.d4. I can't seem to find any in the Indian Games, because everyone knows that theory now. And the Dutch is too well known as well, although I do use it. Is the Polish Defense a sound opening? I can't find any good analysis on it, but I was considering starting to play it. |
|
Mar-03-09
|
| Willem Wallekers: <chessman95: ... I'm looking for a good surprise weapon against 1.d4.>
How about 1 ... c5?
Might follow 2. d5 Nf6 3. c4 b5!? |
|
| Mar-03-09 |
| chessman95: <Willem Wallekers> Unless I'm mistaken, that's transposed to the Benko Gambit. I'm looking for a non-indian game. |
|
Mar-03-09
|
| Willem Wallekers: chessman: Yes it is, if that isn't surprising enough all I can think of is (well, there is also the Budapest gambit) 1. d4 b6 2. e4 Bb7 3. Bd3 f5, but that's unsound. |
|
| Mar-03-09 |
| chessman95: What about the pterodactyl system? (black sets up with g6,Bg7,c5,and Qa5) There's a surprising amount of theory on it on the internet and it seems rare enough. Does anyone know if it's sound? |
|
| Mar-04-09 |
| GeauxCool: <chessman95>
Look through some of the games by Raymond Keene, Lawrence Day, Eric Schiller, or Alvah Mayo who all kibitz on <CG>. They may even answer a few questions for you! For a clear lesson in the <Pterodactyl rhamporhynchus> subvariation, see: D Howell vs L Day, 2005 And how close is this one? Topalov vs I Sokolov, 2006 |
|
Mar-04-09
 |
| KingG: <chessman95> What openings do you play against d4, c4 and e4 at the moment? And when you say everyone knows the theory, roughly up to what move are you talking about? |
|
| Mar-04-09 |
| chessman95: <KingG> Against e4 I almost always play the Sicilian. Against d4 I play Nizmoindian against Nc3 and Queen's Indian against Nf3. Against the Enlish I play ...e5. When I said that everyone knows the indian theory, I didn't have a specific move in mind, I was just saying that most people are familiar with the ideas and main lines of most indian openings, so they're not ideal for a surprise anymore. |
|
| Apr-28-09 |
| returnoftheking: Can someone explain to me why
click for larger viewis so much less popular than variants with e5?
Variants with Bg4 seem to lead to ok positions for black very easily. |
|
| Apr-29-09 |
| SimonWebbsTiger: I presume returnoftheking it has a lot to do with the resulting positions. White, supposedly, can get an edge far more easily after 6...c5 and not everyone likes the Knight on the edge after 7. o-o Nc6 8. d5 Na5. Also, after say 7. d5 , White isn't obliged to play c:d5 (e:d5 instead) when Black seeks play by ...e6 and capture on d5. Relatively speaking, there is lesser dynamism in the Black set up since White isn't about to face a King Side attack any time soon! Of course, if you enjoy those positions you should play them. It avoids the monster analysis after the traditional ...e5 advance. It's a practical solution and I am sure the edge white does get doesn't matter too much for us mere mortals. :-) |
|
| Apr-29-09 |
| returnoftheking: TY, interesting opinion. But besides all the drawbacks it has one big pro: the bishop diagonal is notclosed.
If white 0-0 Nc6 is yugoslav variation I think (with knight on the rim) but black could also play cxd4 with a decent position. Almost a bit hedgehog like. Or Bg4, trading bishop and Nd7 with enough space for black's remaining pieces. |
|
| Jun-27-09 |
| WhiteRook48: I don't think 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 is the KID yet since it's transpositional |
|
| Jul-07-09 |
| WhiteRook48: so 3. f4. Confused yet? |
|
| Jul-28-09 |
| WhiteRook48: or maybe even 3 Bg5?!?! |
|
Aug-18-09
 |
| parisattack: <chessman95: Maybe you're right. I remember reading it in an opening book I got on Indian Games, so I just assumed it was right.
By the way, I'm looking for a good surprise weapon against 1.d4. I can't seem to find any in the Indian Games, because everyone knows that theory now. And the Dutch is too well known as well, although I do use it. Is the Polish Defense a sound opening? I can't find any good analysis on it, but I was considering starting to play it.> There are a couple of books on the Polish Defense - and the related Owen's. I've played it and like it. Black can get positions that are very similar to other openings such as a Kan Sicilian, a Classical French. It has two features I like in a defense - flexibility and the possiblity of play on either/both wings. The Symmetrical Defense and the Albin are also worth a look-see. |
|
| Sep-25-09 |
| James Demery: Why is the winning% so low in this defense? Fischer swore by this defense and had excellent results with it. Has this defense been busted or just gone out of style? |
|
Sep-25-09
 |
| Marmot PFL: I'm not sure its results are worse than most defenses. |
|
Sep-25-09
|
| Marmot PFL: <parisattack> I play 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 b5 for black, but 1 d4 b5 2 e4 looks tougher to meet. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
