Najdorf & Grünfeld Repertoire

  Hi, dear chess lovers!  Nowaday, chess players spend a lot of time in openings. As an amateur, I did a lot of research, I consulted the Grand Masters. Black should play at the beginning of the game not only to equalize, but also to force the opponent. For example, 1...c5 or 1...e5 are the most suitable options against 1.e4, and there are no other good options for 1.d4 except Grünfeld, Nimzo-Indian and Semi-Slav. (Don't let the King's Indian fanatics get angry right away, stop being emotional and accept that it's no longer a good option. Even Kasparov said it was very difficult positionally, statistical results confirm this.) I don't like to give the bishop pair at the opening, and white Catalan can play, so I don't prefer Nimzo-Indian. Actually it's all about the central struggle, Slav can remain a bit passive, and like Ruy Lopez, white has the chance to make a long-lasting pressure. Grünfeld is not like them, it is very combative! (I used to like playing Benoni, but if white knows what to do, you're hard struggling of the center.)

  Lagrave and Nepomniachtchi are the most popular ones, but there are masters like Ftacnik who have played Najdorf and Grünfeld throughout his lifetime. I am curious about your opinions on this issue, and I claim that the best option for black today is Najdorf and Grünfeld. Lazy people take refuge behind excuses and say it's hard to follow the theory. Nowaday this is not true, it is not difficult to look at the online database once a week and the theory does not change much as before.  

  Also, Grünfeld is a schematic and idea-based opening. So it's not just a ton of theory that matters. For example, you can play 1.Nf3 Nf6, 2.c4 g6, 3.Nc3 d5 or 1.c4 Nf6, 2.Nc3 d5. Of course there will be differences, but it is more important for us to master the ideas and pawn structures rather than the engine-made opening preparations. The writings here are very superficial, a detailed and specific preparation should be made for each variant. Experienced coaches said these, they are also players over 2600 ELO each. It is not easy to decide in white, a bit more related to the tastes of the player. Aggressive 1.e4? Flexible 1.c4? Solid 1.d4? Dangerous 1.g4? Ahaha, the last one is joke, of course.

  Oh, I'm not talking about ridiculous gambits or cowardly system openings. (No system is safe.) Please share your ideas on this subject, I wish you healthy days...

Really nice descriptions. I would like to point out that in some lines of the Grunfeld, especially the exchange variation which is, in my opinion, one of the most testing lines, there is theory which goes up to, and sometimes over, 20 moves (if you play the main line as black). This is especially true in the 9.Rb1 line in the exchange variation, where black needs to know what they are doing (if they except the pawn sacrifice), for about twenty moves. The Grunfeld has a lot of theory involved, but I would agree that it is a schematic and idea-based opening. There are a lot of patterns and ideas that can be utilized, but if white plays the most testing lines, theory is needed.

Ok a lot to break down from #1

1. A Najdorf/Grünfeld Rep. seems perfectly decent. I would look at MVL’s games cause well.. he plays the Grunfeld and Najdorf religiously and is probably the world’s greatest expert on both.

2. Well..you kind of saw it coming yourself...I guess I’m one of the “King's Indian fanatics (who got)  angry right away“. Personally, I think you’re just wrong to think the KID is unplayable and unsound. I think that Black can equalize in all lines (Yes, it often takes MANY precise and even brilliant moves, but it is true nonetheless). I’d like to see you refute Kotronias’ and Bologan’s analysis completely showing a win for White. Until you have done that (which I seriously doubt you will be able to do), I’m hearing none of “The KID isn’t playable”.

3. You’re just wrong in suggesting that only the ND, Semi Slav, and Grünfeld are the only good options against d4. First of all, most glaringly, as I have never in my life had to say this before, The QGD is not refuted. Neither is the QID, regular Slav with dxc4, the Bogo Indian, or the Old Indian. The Benonis and the Dutch aren’t fully sound but are nowhere close to refuted either.

  Of course they are solid, they are not just enough nowaday, they do not pose a threat to white. As I was writing this article, I already knew that some people would object. I never say refuted for other openings, I just think they're not as good as you mentioned. I am especially having problems with Dragon fans because they do not admit that after a certain level it is not enough. Before his match with Nakamura, Carlsen laughs and says: ''If he wants to stay in a worse position, he can play the KID.'' 

  Mr. Panayotis, first of all I would like to point out that I have read many of your comments for a long time. I respect you, but I would expect a more positive response. Could you please share your non-ignorant ideas with us? 

Yeah...so what the IM is getting at is that your post was quite long and was honestly was just mostly an Amateur's absurd opinions on Black's defences to 1.d4

Also @Farilya I'd like to challenge you on both the KID and the Dragon. Let's play some games cause I honestly want to see you get a very good position by force which you can convert into a win against both. Do you want to play Daily(Books allowed), Blitz, or Rapid?

  Thanks for your attention Mr. Panayotis, I think I slightly misrepresented what I wanted to say. I work with coaches over 2600 ELO, and of course what the best players say is important to me. Anyway, I don't want to argue much. Debates about openings are often like talking about; politics, religion, football... I really like your comments, good luck, old wolf!

  FizzyBand, we can play whenever you want, I respect everyone's thoughts. I just put forward my own opinion and wondered about your ideas. These are not the absurd options of the amateur, but the options of experienced Grand Masters and statistical results. I understand you, but as I said before, I don't want to argue with Dragon fans. Up to a certain level, every openings can be played after preparing. I wish you good work. 

Since we're discussing the "Bad" KID, here's a nice game where I crushed an IM.

  Bravo! This is a brilliant game. I'm not saying bad for KID, I looked at Kotronias' books, and I preferred KID. I just say that the statistics results are not good, it can be good in practice. In fact, in Smirin's book, "King's Indian is always dangerous." What I said is valid for the elite level, you don't need to lynch me.

There are 2 types of players who spend a lot of time on openings:  masters who need a small edge against other masters, or beginners who will never improve because they are spending too much time on the opening.

Not sure which GMs you are talking to, but every NM, FM, IM, and GM I have spoken to, along with all the books I have read, contradict this statement.  Black must first equalize and then work to gain an advantage.  Simply put, White starts with the initiative, so Black must find a way to neutralize that.

To quote Magnus from the 2016 World Championship match when someone asked him about openings in the post-game interview:  "1..Nf6, 1..e6, 1..e5, 1..d6, 1..d5, 1..c6, 1..c5, 1..Nc6 are all good options".

First, the KID is a perfectly fine option.  The reason Kasparov gave it up had nothing to do with it being difficult positionally; rather, he was having a hard time keeping up with the theory in 2 highly theoretical openings (the Najdorf and the KID), so he had to give on up.  The KID drew the short straw.  As opening systems get analyzed deeper and deeper, it is harder to keep up at the top level.  That is not something you or I will ever have to worry about.  The chances of either of us sitting at a World Championship table wondering if our opponent has found a new idea at move 56 of some line in the KID is pretty close to 0.

Second, while I like the Nimzo-Indian (and would argue that at your level, it is your best option as it is easily the most flexible), there are many setups you could employ.  The way to choose:  find a player whose games you enjoy studying and play whatever they are playing.  If you like young-Naka, play the KID.  If you like current-Naka, play the QGD.  If you like Ding, play the Nimzo.  If you like MVL, play the Grunfeld.  If you like Shankland, play the Semi-Slav.  Etc.

The way the Nimzo is played today, you do not give away the bishop pair unless you get compensation for it.  You can check out Christof Seilecki's "Nimzo and Bogo" book, or his "Nimzo-Ragozin" course on Chessable, or Damian Lemos' video series on the Nimzo and Bogo.  All 3 based on the Nimzo; all 3 using a completely different approach.  And all 3 have good ways to deal with the Catalan.

The Grunfeld is a very theory-intensive opening.  If you want to play it because you think it is less theory intensive than say the Najdorf or KID, you are severely mistaken.  In many lines, Black must suffer for quite a while in order to achieve equality, and you must know the moves necessary to get there because in many cases they are "only" moves and are not always intuitive.

This is the only thing in that paragraph that is remotely accurate.

1. You are spending too much time and effort worrying about openings
2. Your ideas on openings are way off
3. To find the openings you enjoy playing, find the players you enjoy studying and play their openings.  If you like MVL's games as black, the Najdorf and Grunfeld may be for you.  If you do not like studying his games, they definitely are NOT for you.
4. Spend your time working on tactics and endgames; it will serve you much better than worrying about openings for the next ~600-1000 rating points.

  Thanks buddy, a useful comment. I will care what you say. At the beginning of my article, I already said that amateurs spend a lot of time for openings. The Grand Masters of Azerbaijan I worked with said, "Low-level players will oppose you, do not be angry with them because their understanding is not enough." So don't worry, I understand what you mean very well. If you do detailed statistics research on the mega database, you will understand what I mean. Today, Najdorf & Grünfeld is the options that gives the most chance against black at both amateur and elite levels. Tactics and endgame working already regularly things I do every day, thank you anyway. 

Talk about a worthless and ignorant point of view.

The Grunfeld and Najdorf are fine openings, which is why a lot of very strong GMs play them.  But strong GMs generally spend a lot of time studying openings, and they are much more efficient than amateur players at such studying.  Opening positions that might take a 2000 elo player 10 minutes to understand, a strong GM might already understand or might evaluate correctly in a few seconds.

My problem with these opening choices is that the amount of theoretical knowledge necessary to play the Grunfeld and Najdorf properly is quite large, significantly more than for most openings.  If you find yourself in a sharp line which your opponent knows better than you do, you can lose without a chance right out of the opening.  (This happens to strong GMs too, but of course, less often.)  And there are a lot of razor-sharp lines in these openings.

If you like studying openings for their own sake, then by all means you can try these openings: there are many interesting lines to investigate.  However, if your main goal is trying to improve your playing level, I would recommend you choose solider openings to minimize the amount of time you need to study opening theory, openings in which the cost of not knowing large amounts of theory is lower. 

You could then spend more time on more productive studying (improving positional understanding, tactical awareness, endgames, etc.).

I dunno why this thread got resurrected but it reminded me of Najgrunfeld. About five or six or seven years ago there was a kid by that name who claimed to be a superprodigy who posted a lot on these forums. It’s possible he actually was very strong and people kept trying to figure out who he was, but then his account got closed for fair play.

I hope that kid is doing okay nowadays, whatever he’s up to 🤷

Yep I mentioned that his account was closed for that in my post

I definitely remember people actively guessing about who he could be, and we'll never know I suppose. Lives on in chesscom forum lore

I love the Gruenfeld and Najdorf. Both offers Dynamic positions.