Grunfeld or King's Indian, and suggestions against anti-systems

I'm hoping some stronger players can give me a summary of the differences between the King's Indian and the Grunfeld, their theoretical soundness, your preference for one or the other, and, if you are a KID or Grunfeld player, how you play against other systems like the London/ Trompowsky, etc. I currently play the semi-slav, and have had success with it, but I have been experimenting in blitz with system like the Pirc and Grunfeld, and am really enjoying the counterattacking possibilities and, believe it or not, dealing with raging attacks from White. Still, I want to focus in on either the KID or Grunfeld against d4, and start building a comprehensive repertoire around one of them, if possible. I'm obviously not afraid of heavy theory.

Well that's good because they are both theoretical nightmares. The Grunfeld is more played at top level, at lower level it is almost unheard of. It is sharper and more theory heavy. It is also unbelievably complex and confusing. You give white the center and then try to tear it down but you have to be precise. There is also some forced lines that lead to a draw I believe and it can be somewhat avoided. You can check out some games by Peter Svidler and Maxime Vachier Lagrave.

The KID is always popular even at low elo. It's a little more flexible and you get closed position with a locked center so pawn play is everything. You also should be comfortable to play with a lack of space. It can get really aggressive and there are many systems for white but the ideas are simpler to grasp. Radjabov plays this today, you can check out his games.

Of course you should try them out see if you have fun with them. And these types of posts usually attract those "you're an idiot for learning openings under 2500 rating" but just ignore them.

Both are littered with theory.  Neither is recommended for anybody under 2000.

The problem with the Grunfeld is you have to know a bazillion pawn structures as every option of White's leads to something totally different.  4.Bg5 vs 4.e3 vs 4.Nf3/5.e3 vs 4.Nf3/5.Qb3 vs 4.cxd5 with 7.Bc4 vs 4.cxd5 with 7.Nf3 and 8.Rb1 vs more offbeat lines.

Also, there are tons of anti-lines in the English.

The Kings Indian is pretty much playable against everything but 1.e4, and you mostly just need to know the blocked center, the maroczy bind center, and the benoni center.  But there are lines that could potentially question its soundness.

Neither are recommended at your level.

For what it is worth, having played the kings Indian, against the London, 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.Nf3 d6 5.h3 O-O 6.Be2 Nbd7 7.Nbd2 Qe8 8.O-O e5.

Now if White trades on e5, recapture with the pawn.  Your next non-recapture move is ...Qe7.

Note if Nbd2 is not played by move 7, like 7.O-O above, then 7...Ne4 8.Nbd2 Nxd2 9.Qxd2 e5 saves a tempo as the Q can go directly to e7, not e8.

The previous two have done well talking about the differences, so I’ll talk about the sidelines.

Against the London I play 2…c5 (1…Nf6). Usually best is to defend the d pawn with another pawn to keep the London structure. After that I usually go into a QID setup, but there are different lines. I used to play KID against the London, but I personally never liked it. I felt the e5 push was a little weakening, as white simply moves his bishop back.

Against the trompowsky I played the mainline, Ne4 followed by c5 and Qa5+. I was able to get a bit of practice because another person in my state frequently played the tromp, but I don’t think a lot of people play that opening anyways.

Against 2.Nf3, I’ve been suffering after going into a reluctant benoni with 2…c5 3.d5, where just yesterday I was busted out of the opening by a 2200 in otb. I might try 2…b5 again.

See both are theory heavy but fun to play and are extremely solid but yeah you do need  some engine analysis as they are very tricky and even one mistake can blow you off the board 

I think as post 2 said u should ignore idiot who claim learning certain openings not useful below certain level but its not and ignore them even if gowtham chess says the same and learn whatever you want

Anyway if you want  theory heavy prep u can check chessable for swidlers course on grunfeld and try short and sweet and even buy the full course if you are interested and have money 

And if you r kid fan then buy gm gawain Jones free or paid course on chessable on kid among many other kid courses but I have tried em all and gm gawain Jones course Is literally best and he covered everything in detail 

So these are two option to  learn if you r interested 

And yes as far as my preference concerned as I have played both kid and grunfeld for lot of time but now I prefer grunfeld way more than kid because it's very passive but of course very solid and no white system can blow it off the board if and only if u are fully prepared and booked up to teeth with variations and general concepts 

Grunfeld is not passive and offers lot of counter play on every side of the board and games  are tactical blood bath and i really enjoy the positions so you can choose your Poision if you want to remain ultra solid but passive you can use kid And if you want tactical blood bath then you can choose grunfeld 

Note :don't play any of them untill u are fully prepared and booked up because you will be blown of the board in 20 moves against a opponent who is booked up with theory and engine analysis

This is how I destroyed my favourite opening ( the grunfeld) in a classical otb match in 25 moves using my favourite system among three against a less booked up opponent and yes this variation is one of the most dangerous variation against the grunfeld  if I leave the Russian system, 3.f3 system I have well prepared all of the three system to be well prepared against grunfeld

#1
"a summary of the differences between the King's Indian and the Grunfeld"
++ The King's Indian Defence aims for an attack on the white king, while accepting a white endgame advantage on the queen's wing. The Grünfeld Indian Defence aims to win the endgame with the queen's side pawn majority, while defending against the white attack on the black king.

"their theoretical soundness"
++ Theoretically Grünfeld is more sound than the King's Indian Defence

"I'm obviously not afraid of heavy theory." ++ Both Grünfeld and King's Indian Defence are heavy on theory. The question is not if you are afraid, but rather if it is a good use of your time.

"... ignore idiot who claim certain openings not useful below certain level ..."?

You think you can talk in some backhanded BS language and think you are so slick that we won't catch your personal attack?

The idiot is YOU!  The only thing that you might do like Caruana is defecate!  And even that is questionable as yours spews out of your mouth!

The Grunfeld is very sound but requires a lot of preparation, as there are a large number of White systems where Black needs to be well-prepared just to survive.  This is a consequence of Black giving up the center to White semi-permanently in many lines.  White has a big, fluid center and this often leads to attacking chances.  Black has to be very precise about seeking active counterplay against that center or Black can get run over.

In the main lines of the King's Indian, the center is often locked after Black's e7-e5/c7-c5 and White's d4-d5, and the game is more of a maneuvering/positional game, although it can later get quite sharp in variations like the Mar del Plata.  I would say that the cost of a mistake by Black is often less in the King's Indian than the Grunfeld, and you can get away with significantly less preparation, particularly if you play the Na6 or Nbd7 variations (both of which are playable at the GM level) and avoid the Mar del Plata.

The King's Indian works better as a universal system because it can also be played against 1.Nf3 and 1.c4, while there are various anti-Grunfeld systems after these moves that are quite challenging and the Grunfeld player needs to learn well.

I would probably choose the King's Indian over the Grunfeld as a main opening for practical reasons, mainly because Black's position is more flexible and once you get a good feeling for typical maneuvers you can play it without knowing a huge amount of theory and still get acceptable positions.  Whereas with the Grunfeld, in many lines you must know deep theory or you can lose quickly against a well-prepared opponent.  I wouldn't worry too much about the King's Indian's soundness: with engine lines now going 60-ply deep or more in some variations, no refutation has yet been found and probably never will be.

First of all i didn't even targeted you I said this in reference too shrek chess who goes around the forum saying that people should not learn sicilian before 1800  because he himself fooll and didn't know any openings well and plays trash openings in many of his games 

I even don't remember you discouraging anyone not to play some openings but you alway try to help him by telling some good lines for both sides

But now this is just crossing the line and yeah if you want it to be personal so ok now it is personal 

LOL - You don't recall me discouraging certain openings based on rating?

Read the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH of Post 3!

SMH!

Ok np

I literally don't care again

ok then leave bye

I close it myself o was busy studying for iit and I can't spend more than hour for chessmainly I learn on chessable come here to play one or two blitz game to test my learning

When I would resume chess I would make a new account and most probably with not such a trash username

Feedback? This was a rapid game I just played (10-0), my first in the KID in prolly several years.