kings Indian defense

Stick with something closer to your ability.  Work on opening principles.

Opening Principles:

1. Control the center squares – d4-e4-d5-e5
2. Develop your minor pieces toward the center – piece activity is the key
3. Castle
4. Connect your rooks

Tactics...tactics...tactics...

The objective of development is about improving the value of your pieces by increasing the importance of their roles. Well-developed pieces have more fire-power than undeveloped pieces and they do more in helping you gain control.

Now we will look at 5 practical things you can do to help you achieve your development objective.

They are:

1. Give priority to your least active pieces.

• Which piece needs to be developed (which piece is the least active)
• Where should it go (where can its role be maximized)

2. Exchange your least active pieces for your opponent’s active pieces.
3. Restrict the development of your opponent’s pieces.
4. Neutralize your opponent’s best piece.
5. Secure strong squares for your pieces.

Don’t help your opponent develop.

There are 2 common mistakes whereby you will simply be helping your opponent to develop:

1. Making a weak threat that can easily be blocked
2. Making an exchange that helps your opponent to develop a piece

Pre Move Checklist:

1. Make sure all your pieces are safe.
2. Look for forcing moves: Checks, captures, threats. You want to look at ALL forcing moves (even the bad ones) as this will force you look at, and see the entire board.
3. If there are no forcing moves, you then want to remove any of your opponent’s pieces from your side of the board.
4. If your opponent doesn’t have any of his pieces on your side of the board, then you want to improve the position of your least active piece.
5. After each move by your opponent, ask yourself: "What is my opponent trying to do?"

Great!

I play KID. ITs hard and there is a lot of theory. You need to learn the theory to play it. You can watch videos of agadmator in which people play kings indian defense. Watch some games and see how they play it. After some time start learning the theory. It becomes easier to learn as you know how GMs play the opening. 

If you can't understand the hypermodern concept of giving up the center to later on attack it or to hope your opponent will close it for you so you have time to regroup your pieces to the kingside and push all your pawns where your king has castled then you shouldn't play it, no one said the KID was an easy opening for beginners and if you want to play it you have to violate almost every principle there is

King's Indian Defence is a great opening to play for a win with black, but at greater risk of losing.

At your level you should barely be thinking about openings. Play something simple, like the italian with white, and e5 and d5 with black. Then just use basic opening principles, and do a lot of tactics puzzles

Sadly this online mentality of barely knowing how the pieces move and thinking that studying openings will improve your game?  Has trickled over into chess clubs.  Last Tuesday I went t chess club and was playing a very nice guy that was new to the game.  So he tells me how he plays the Sicilian (Shocker).  So how did he "play" the Sicilian?  By playing moves he memorized, without any basic understanding of "why" those moves are made.  Hung material, and resigned.  So he asked me: "What did i do wrong?"  I told him that he was playing moves he just memorized and had no basic understanding of "why" they are played, why the pieces go where  they go, and why the pawns go where they go.  So we played another game and this time he plays the KID.  Same result.  he just played moves he had memorized and had no clue "why" he was playing them. 

#10
It is not only in chess. Many students memorize their syllabus hoping to pass their exams and they do not care about understanding what is in it.
Many opening books with seducing titles like "Winning with the XYZ Gambit!" foster this idea that it is possible to overrun opponents without thinking, just by memorizing a book.
It is a form of lazyness.

I expect this from online players, but now its in public chess clubs.  I fear the game is doomed.

As soon as I read the title of the thread I felt a sinking feeling of dread. I have read many such threads before going to bed but sadly it’s these kinds of threads that are being fed. 

i can’t think of any more rhyming words.

I don't feel qualified to answer your question directly.  But you might consider checking out a YouTube channel called GothamChess (Levy Rozman).  He's a proponent of the KID for beginning players and has a pretty good video about how to get started with it.  After watching that, I suggest searching for the KID video(s) on the Hanging Pawns (Stjepan).  His videos are really great and he explains the why, not just the how.   All the best to you!

I kinda lost respect for levy after I saw that he started calling the pieces/modern the kings Indian.

Jesus, kid!  Rozman is a nobody, like the bunch of us.  You talk like he is the next Carlsen.  He's a low rated IM.  2353 is low by IM standards!

I claim Fischer was a nut job and could not win unless he got his way with everything.  Most world championship matches were in front of a live audience.  He had to go in some private back room and boycotted game 2 after a horrible Bishop blunder in game 1.

You going to report me now for calling Fischer a donkey?  Pa-leez!

Its to  be expected....when Stillman was still around, his followers were smacktalking. 'its the imbalances'. Course back then, he owned that 'world'.

And please give Levy some credit here. Who thought he would gather a following? When Stillman was too old(and he was well past his time), and who was going to take over was either chessnetwork, ginger, or I dont remember who,...no one thought of Levy. He came out of Nakamura and Twitch. I think most of what hapened is 'Gotham', so you had Batman playing chess. But in the end, Levy is tied to Nak. Not a bad place mind you.

But Naks the guy no one wants to talk about. His reputation has turned around 180. No longer the arrogant guy who was falling out of top 10, he was the king of blitz....and 'likeable'...and wealthier. Its now Nak as the simp/onlyfan.

what does this "started calling the pieces/modern the kings indian" mean? enlighten me please

My assumption is that they are trying to say is that he doesn't like this Levy person calling the Modern, the KID?  Now i just wish i knew what they meant by "pieces".

Ah it was autocorrect and i forgot to check. I meant pirc/ modern. Sorry about that

And that clears that up.