Grunfeld or King's Indian??

HI There,

I have played the grunfeld for sometime but I'm not sure if it suits me because I like and play the dragon/dragadorf as black. My coach has tried to convince me ever since I first got taught by him to play the king's indian because I like to play dragon as black. I've always not wanted to play the king's indian because I've heard that there isn't much theory to it. I take this as a con because I usually use my memorisation skills in the super theoretical grunfeld to beat people who forget the theory. But I really like the idea to hack on the kingside, lose material on the queenside, and checkmate. Please give me your opinion of wheather or not I should play the grunfeld or king's indian AND EXPLAIN WHY!!

There's an enormous amount of theory in the KID. Who told you otherwise?

Really prawn? Could you give me a few examples?

You can play the KID without a lot of theory, depending on your level. Above 1800 you are setting yourself up for a shellacking if you play the KID without doing your homework (although that is true of many openings at 1800+)

I've played the KID for quite a while, and only recently have I bothered looking into the theory. As far as the similarity of the systems, I play the Dragadorf and King's Indian Defense exclusively as black. I'm not sure why you would need to switch to the KID from the Grunfeld. I mean, I don't see why one is more similar to the Dragon than the other. Do you remember why the KID was more similar?

As far as playing one or the other, I think you should use the one you are more comfortable with.

OMG,U SAYING NO THERY IN THE KID

U gotta be kidding me!?!?!

The REAL theory in the KID starts on move 25!U gotta remember it to move 40something!

I win (or lose) most of my games in about 20 moves so I guess that's why I never noticed all the theory

No Benko ? Give it a look. Funnily enough the Epishin variation of the Benko put the Kibosh on the Benko Gambit during the 90's ... as did many others over the years - but that line has now been tamed. Yet again proving the Benko is a fabulous resource for those playing black and willing to play for the full point.

With some spunk ... and a little spirit

But if I remember all the theory, will it  give me an at least slight advantage like in the grunfeld if my opponent plays a non-theory move?

Of course not - the replies to Black's c5 are legion

errr what's legion benkobaby?

I think he means lots, or numerous.

Also benkobaby I've tried out the benko but it's a bit too positional for me. I like more tactical stuff like grunfeld or MAYBE king's indian

you can actually still play the grunfeld against f3, f3 is called the neo grunfeld, you don't have to go into a kid if you don't want to

Dear Willilo,

Man, fiveofswords is everywhere in every forum!!! Sweet!

Anyway, I enjoyed this question and topic discussion mainly because it addressed what I think can be a common misconception (or two).

First I agree with many of the posts: The King's Indian is full of theory! During the turn of the century (early 2000s) it was thought that the "glory days" of the KID were gone (Glory Days probably being Kaspy's time in the early to mid 90s).

However, when the second "Boy From Baku" emerged (Radjabov) it became clear that there were still enough subtleties and tricks in these lines for the KID to be played consistently at the highest level.

I played the KID until I was roughly 2200 (Master Level), but I didn't quit it because of the "lack of theory" or that it was bad. Simply wanted to learn something else (the Nimzo).

The second misconception I wanted to address is the constant comparison to the KID and Grunfeld. Here is the deal: The KID and the Grunfeld are hardly (other than the g6 move and fianchetto) similar!

Really, the KID is a "give away the space in order to create chains, and create an attack toward one direction of the board with either c5 or e5" opening (and is totally closed in the main lines such as the Bayonet). On the other hand, the Grunfeld is an open game, direct assuat on white's center with c5, clash type of opening. There are not really any "structural" or thematic similarities in how black finds a plan...

If you are serious about learning a new opening then do it the right way: Choose your Stem Games and Stem Players. For example, there are famous games and famous players who play every opening, and you should choose your repertoire, find out who the best players are that play those openings, and then commit to playing like those players.

For KID: Kasparov, Radjabov, and Shirov are some great players who play the King's Indian.

Get Zurich 1953 (by Bronstein) and review some of the famous King's Indian games for Stem Games. Najdorf and Averbhak both had great games in the KID during that tournament.

Thanks for letting me post.

Danny

Thanks danny, that really made it clear for me!

I agree with this.  I have no idea why people mention the KID and Grunfeld in the same breath.  I would think KID and Benoni might be options to consider but even those two yield different games most of the time. 

I used to play the KID and gruenfeld both but found the gruenfeld was too easily/often avoided so stuck with the KID for about 20 years. I dont play it as often as I used to though since adding the slav to my black repertoire.

Lots of interesting discussions here (although the thread is old) but in my opinion King's indian is much more easier to learn and play, at least at amateur level & below (I consider myself an amateur too ). The opening is strategically rich and the positions tend to be closed & thematic. So ideas are easier to learn and play, I won't be surprised if black scores extremely well in KID at club level. Grunfeld on the other hand is full blooded concrete chess and I find it an extremely difficult opening to play (with either colors). Concrete ideas backed by tactics is the name of the game here, general thematic ideas are often less significant. Although a lot of grunfeld variations and positions look similar, it's often that concrete, tactical moves that are of greater significance and home preparation plays a bigger role here (a reason why Grunfeld is popular among hard working GMs). So which opening is good? Well both! And it all depends on you, what type of player you are and what type of positions you like. Both are extremely complicated openings and playable at all levels. 

I decided to necro this because I was researching the topic and found some fantastic information in here that might be useful to others.