is Grunfeld better than KID?

It is generally agreed apon that the Grunfeld is more theoretically sound than the KID. But harder to play- not recommended for weaker players

In general I would probably suggest something else besides either the KID or the Gruenfeld and prefer something more active like the Budapest. But many Indian openings take time to study.

This is an interesting topic for me as well.  Anyway when I started out, I decided to play Sicilian against e4 (I go for Najdorf when I get the chance, which isn't that often). It is not because I am a strong tactical player, it is quite the opposite actually, and I wanted to have some games which will force me to improve tactically. Anyway, my success with open Sicilians with either color is not that great (not that terrible either), but I find these games very enjoyable and exciting nonetheless.

To get to the point... I play Slav against d4, as I just picked it from the beginning and went with it. Perhaps not yet, but in some near/distant future I would like to try something more tactical. 

Could someone who has concrete knowledge about Grunfeld and KID say something about both openings, so I can consider my options. Thank you in advance. 

lolwut

The Gruenfeld is either take take and 5. e4 with a strong pawn center for White and a tempo, or you play 4..Bg7 anyways.

This basically comes down to being part of the hypermodern school, and I prefer the romantic ways that were exhibited before that period. I don't like either of the two.

Well, that's fair enough, but allowing White to build a centre and then attacking it is what one would call 'active', while the classical ways are considered more solid with Black putting a pawn in the centre themselves.

just have to say PSV are terrible support Man Utd

No thanks, I prefer Arsenal when it comes to the Premier League.

How do I report you lol

I guess some players think the hypermodern school is the new interpretation of 'active'. I evaluate mostly on the activity of the pieces. When you allow your opponent to build a centre and only after try to break it down, I will say you're not active enough. Of course one move in the opening won't make much of a difference, but for me, 2..g6 and 3..Bg7 are not active, also when Bg7 gets played a move or two later.

This seems to be heading towards arguing semantics, but you can just google ''grunfeld active'' and see it's one of the most common words used when describing the opening. Also I fail to understand how Bg7 is not active when it is not blocked by a Knight in the e4 Nxc3 bxc3 lines and thus looks at the centre, the Knight is usually developed to c6, also pressuring the centre, Bg4 is a common move as well when there's a Knight on f3 and also moves like Qa5 and Rd8 are about as active as can be. Why do you feel the Budapest Gambit is more 'active' when in the main variation after ten moves you only have the Bishop and Knight out on b4 and e5 (The Queen on e7 can hardly be considered 'active') respectively, and Black usually goes Bxd2 or Ng6 there?

@thechezzbozz google it

i dont like or know the budapest

Who says I play the main variation of the Budapest ten more moves?

From my perspective, the 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 (..Bg7) is a meagre result for Black and White has more space than Black. This is indeed semantics and part of the hypermodern school so it fits the Gruenfeld but it's not my main pick.

By the way, I'm curious what your suggested main line of the Budapest is. There are a few lines I enjoy discussing (but don't expect too much theoretical knowledge from me, I know the names and ideas and usually a line or two but I mostly shape my own game).

Yeah I'm going to unfollow, at this point I'm pretty sure you are trolling, in which case I believe congratulations are in order considering I gave you a serious response. Until next time (but hopefully not, heh) !

But.. how am I trolling?

I am honestly confused. I was looking forward to discussing the Budapest - or the Gruenfeld for that matter.

I enjoy reading your responses since this shows how there are multiple views on how to play chess, yet now you.. discard my view?

I agree but if someone is intent on playing the Grunfeld anyway I would reccomend starting out by only playing the Grunfeld against the London. In that case even if white knows some theory and plays c4, things arent too complicated for black to know what to do. Anyway...thats how I got interested in the Grunfeld....as something interesting to play against the London. After winning a few games against the London with a grunfeld set up I decided to play a regular Grunfeld against 1. d4 and found the positions much more difficult to navigate. Since then I mostly went back to the Chigorins queens gambit...only occasionally playing the Grunfeld as a surprise weapon and even then only when I have time to study theory pretty in depth or in a correspondonce game where I can just look up the theory while I play.

What

I prefer the directness and activity of the Tarrasch Defense. However, I think the Grunfeld is better and the KID a bit better than the Tarrasch Defense. But the Tarrasch Defense might be the more practical choice on the club level. 

Really? I would've guessed the opposite.

The KID looks extremely complex to me. A lot of positional maneuvering, in many of the closed-center lines, where White adjusts and expands with a queenside attack, while Black arranges his own expansion and assault on the kingside.

Whereas the Grunfeld looks more like the Modern Defense to me . . . very direct and straightforward in nature, bluntly pressuring and attacking White's central pawns, with that Bg7 knifing down that dark diagonal.

(I'm a QGD player, so I'm admittedly not well versed in either of those defenses. Though I've always thought that the Grunfeld looks "easier" to play than the KID.)