KID: tactical, based on the..f5 lever, messy but in a good way for black.
Grunfeld [ also spelled gruenfeld]: based on attacking white's pawn centre and smashing it, usually with an early..c5 early on. More positional than the KID and less messy tactics.
Both are excellent defences. The above comments are generalities. Either defence can be tactical or positional in some lines.
I would not recommend the Grunfeld to anyone as a major repertoire choice, unless you are a chess professional willing to take up a huge amount of your time keeping up on all the variations.
The reason for this is not that the Grunfeld is bad, but white has about 8 different lines available to him that give him a slight edge, and each is markedly different from the other.
From a practical perspective, the Grunfeld isn't worth the headaches. The Kings Indian is far less demanding on Black's time.
To illustrate this, Boris Avrukh wrote an excellent two-volume opening guide for white playing 1.d4.
He then turned around and wrote two volumes just on the Grunfeld alone!
...
The Grunfeld typically avoids a set central pawn structure and allows for more active piece play. The more open center requires greater precision as small mistakes can be magnified quickly. I agree with SmyslovFan's assessment, it is too complex for most players.
But there are some players who will just feel at home in that wild situation. No one can choose your opening for you, you must find for yourself what you feel most comfortable and confident player, which leads to positions you like to play and understand.
The problem with the Grunfeld is that there are far too many different types of positions that White can choose from. White can choose wild tactical lines, quiet positional lines, lines that resemble the Queen's Gambit, that resemble the Catalan, that resemble the KID. The problem is not just the wild forcing lines that go +20 moves deep, the problem is that Black needs to be well-versed in a host of different types of positions.
The Grünfeld is great though for the chess professional. The positions are fluid enough but solid enough that black will be able to retain chances if/when white missteps.
Yes the Grunfeld is a difficult opening and yes it can be unforgiving but it has also some advantages. First the basic ideas in the grunfeld are more of less the same in any variation. The pawn levers and tactics often work out no matter where whites light squared bishop is. Also people make the theory a lot harder than it seems. The great book of Averuk with i think about 300 pages gives black a full proof system (aimed at 1800+)
The KID has her cons too. There is just as much theory on it as is on the grunfeld and it is just as unforgiven. One pawn pushed too early or one piece (light squared bishop for example) exchanged and black has is left with almost 0 counterplay.
In the end my opening is that grunfeld or kid is a matter of style and taste. If you like dynamic open positions where every tempo can have direct effect play grunfeld. If you like pawn chains and system like attacks play the KID.
Also have a look at the e4 rep. For example if he likes openings like the french suggest the KID (both are based on pawn chains)
********
Yes, a KID player has to be prepared for the 2 "smashmouth" lines for white - 4 pawns and Samisch - and more positional systems like the Petrosian System. Not to mention the Bayonet attack lines.
So I don't see any difference in the "maintenance" aspect of learning either opening. The only way in which the KID could be a low maintenance defence is if black played..c5 rather than ..e5 break lines [yugoslav system?] .
Heidrich wrote:
If someone asked you to explain the two openings to him because he is torn about which opening to pick what would you say?
____________________________________________________________________________________________
A long time ago GM Ron Henley taught me that move order is extremely important in openings. For example he pointed out to me that with the move order 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 with the early concentration on the d5 square prevents the Gruenfeld Defense.
I doubt that is what Ron Henley taught you because black can answer 3. g3 with d5 and have no more trouble then usual when playing black.
Grunfeld: Pressure on the pawn center of White.
KID: Tactical possibilities on both flanks for both sides.
moonnie wrote:
I doubt that is what Ron Henley taught you because black can answer 3. g3 with d5 and have no more trouble then usual when playing black.
_________________________________________________________
I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you stating that Black still has a playable position or that Black can still transpose into the Gruenfeld Defense?
@transpo: 3. g3 d5 is a normal variation of the Grunfeld. Nothing more nothing less.
Korchnoi used the following move order to avoid the Grunfeld:
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4.
There are other ways to avoid the Grunfeld too, but fewer systems involving d4 that avoid the King's Indian.
Having said that, for an elite GM to routinely avoid an opening such as the Grunfeld says something about his opinion of the opening. The Grunfeld is objectively fine. But I still believe it is far too complex, time-consuming to learn, and labor-intensive to stay current for most players to consider as their main repertoire choice.
@SmyslovFan I totally agree. But maybe this applies only to players of your level and my level? I remember when I was a 1600 and I played the Grunfeld. Relatively speaking, I had no idea what I was doing. So there might be a sweet spot where you're starting to really get serious, and opponents are often well-prepared, and it's really important to have home-field advantage, especially with black.
But can't you still play 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5? I mean it's not the Grunfeld, but at the lower levels (i.e. below IM) it should be perfectly ok.
One thing to keep in mind is that the King's Indian Defense is an opening (requires specific move sequences from both sides), but the King's Indian setup can be played against lots of irregular openings (unlike the Gruenfeld, which is much more limited) making the King's Indian an excellent opening to play for a while, just to learn the ideas, even if it is not going to be your main defense. Same thing for the French. See my article Openings vs. Opening Systems http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman105.pdf.
Even above IM that position is probably ok, right?? Wasn't there some game Carlsen-Giri from a similar position?
The only real difference is that white has commited d4.
The kin'g indian is well better much ,stronger attacking lines!
If someone asked you to explain the two openings to him because he is torn about which opening to pick what would you say?