< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 6 ·
|Dec-11-06|| ||who: <duffer> sorry. I was talking about starting out the KI. <acirce> I'm surprised you like it.|
|Dec-11-06|| ||acirce: <duffer> It's nothing all that extraordinary about it, it's just that it does a very good job explaining all the various ideas in the opening and offers a fine repertoire illustrated with nicely annotated games. I like it better than "Starting Out...".|
|Dec-11-06|| ||duffer: Thanks, mate. I think I'll get Bronstein's book. He stresses ideas, which seem more important, over lines.|
|Jun-27-07|| ||Kleve: I, for one, love playing through KID games the masters played... Fischer was a demon in this opening! I only wish we could see more of this one in high-level play. I'm bored to tears by the QID...|
|Sep-18-08|| ||bujawi: is there anybody that can help me find games of the kings indian attack
|Oct-26-08|| ||nikolajewitsch: I am not sure whether this is the right place to post this, but we definitely need to edit the databases regarding old KID games. Right now, the DB lists games from 1839, 1858 and 1871 as the oldest KID games, all of which seem dubious. I've posted questions on the sites of the respective games; any help of people with better access to databases than I have would be greatly appreciated.|
|Nov-24-08|| ||hedgeh0g: Can anyone recommend a book on the KID for an 1800ish player with some knowledge of the ideas in the KID but not a lot of knowledge regarding specific lines? I was scouring through Amazon and was considering "The Complete King's Indian" by Keene. Is this any good?|
|Nov-24-08|| ||Jim Bartle: I have a "repertoire" book by Andrew Martin (can't remember the exact title, and I think it's changed in later editions), which presents a single KID variation against the various white plans.|
A good presentation, though obviously far from comprehensive.
|Dec-10-08|| ||rangek: Hi sorry I have a newbie question here.
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 g6
3. Nc3 Bg7
4. e4 0-0
sometimes my opponent plays 5. e5 and I have to respond 5.. Ne8. Whats a good plan for relieving the cramped black position? does f6 or d6 help? Or do other moves work better?
|Dec-10-08|| ||euripides: <rangek> Take a look at |
Letelier vs Fischer, 1960
for some ideas - also you can use the 'see similar games' feature to get other games in the same line.
Generally a combination of d6 and c5 can work well. If White plays Nf3 then Bg4 may be helpful.
Black can avoid the problem with 4...d6, though when I play the KID as Black I like the rare line 4...0-0 5.Nf3 c6 !?
|Dec-10-08|| ||rangek: <euri>
couldn't thank you enough!
Not having the full features of opening explorer sucks xP
The KID's width and depth is scaring the amateur in me
|Mar-01-09|| ||ILikeFruits: kid...
|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?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 6 ·