jimmerstoopy - yes, 3.Nf3 and 4.g3 (or the immediate 3.g3, which might be more accurate) is fine if you don't want to allow the Gruenfeld proper. Then Black has to choose from the King's Indian, the Benoni, the Gruenfeld-Slav setup with ...c6 and ...d5, and the Neo-Gruenfeld proper with ...d5. The main line of the latter is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 d5 (if 4...0-0, 5.Nc3 stops 5...d5) 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.Nf3 Nb6! 7.Nc3 Nc6! (to force White to spend a move on e3) 8.e3 (8.d5?! Bxc3+! wins a pawn) 0-0 9.0-0 and now the semi-waiting move 9...Re8 (the immediate 9...e5 is also possible). Then 10.d5 has been White's most popular move (scoring 52.8% in 524 games in ChessBase's Mega Database 2013). Close behind, and more popular recently, is 10.Re1, which has scored 53.9% in 485 games. See ChessBase Magazine No. 155 (Aug./Sept. 2013) for more details.
Why is the Gruenfeld Defense not more popular?
I like the Gruenfeld myself, but there are SO many lines for White. If Black doesn't know book and/or makes a slight mistake, he can easily get blown out of the water. Look at the first game of the 2010 world championship match between Topalov and Anand, for example. Anand plays 22 moves of preparation, misremembers and plays a mistake on move 23, and Topalov immediately destroys him. Roman Dzindzichashvili in his recent chess.com video on an early h4 in the Gruenfeld (he says it's junk) rightly observed that in the Gruenfeld, "Black has to know everything." Theoretically, it's great, but if you don't know 20-30 moves of theory in a bunch of different lines, you're playing with fire. A lot of other openings are more intuitive and "forgiving" - if you play an inferior move, you might get a worse game but you won't just get annihilated.
Was it against Gata Kamasky or against Topalov?
I love the Gruenfeld as black. It's very popular on high levels, but not on amateur levels for some reason. I can only guess it's because white has many lines at his disposal, but that doesn't really concern me that much since I know them fairly well. However, white players seem to have a lot of trouble with it. For example, my opponent here blundered a piece after 11 moves! This is one of the games that got me to master.
I love the Gruenfeld as black. It's very popular on high levels, but not on amateur levels for some reason. I can only guess it's because white has many lines at his disposal, but that doesn't really concern me that much since I know them fairly well. However, white players seem to have a lot of trouble with it. For example, my opponent here blundered a piece after 11 moves! This is one of the games that got me to master.
Some kibitzing :
QuantummKnight: probably 13.0-0. I definitely would NOT play 13.d5 Ne5 14.Bb4? 
Why? Because if you are in the Top 10 and you play it against ' little girls ' you may get burnt...
That's why I gave up the Grunfeld years ago. In those days I said I knew everything about the Najdorf and Grunfeld because I memorized so much from MCO lol! I really don't like how sterile the Grunfeld is, instead opting for various Dutches or Queen's Indians nowadays.
This is my favorite openings that I play more than anything vs 1. d4. My result is 50-50 against 1600+, and more wins vs lower ratings.
Do you think it's easy to play it as white? It's not. NM already said Anand has played it vs Topalov.
Sicilian has much more theory than Gruenfeld. If Sicilian had 6 volumes, Gruenfeld would have only 2 volumes. But ppl like Sicilian without knowing that it's the most theoretical play.
just looks like it creates a minefield in the centre but im only just looking at it for the first time so please dont slag me too much lol
This is my favorite openings that I play more than anything vs 1. d4. My result is 50-50 against 1600+, and more wins vs lower ratings.
Do you think it's easy to play it as white? It's not. NM already said Anand has played it vs Topalov.
Sicilian has much more theory than Gruenfeld. If Sicilian had 6 volumes, Gruenfeld would have only 2 volumes. But ppl like Sicilian without knowing that it's the most theoretical play.
The difference is the Sicilian is dynamic, exciting, and richly imbalanced whereas the Grunfeld feels... dull.
I enjoy playing against the Grunfeld as white. Positions are always interesting and crazily unbalanced (I play the exchange).
I would like to try it as black, but if there's too much theory than no. Sharp positions reward those with better preparation.
This is my favorite openings that I play more than anything vs 1. d4. My result is 50-50 against 1600+, and more wins vs lower ratings.
Do you think it's easy to play it as white? It's not. NM already said Anand has played it vs Topalov.
Sicilian has much more theory than Gruenfeld. If Sicilian had 6 volumes, Gruenfeld would have only 2 volumes. But ppl like Sicilian without knowing that it's the most theoretical play.
The difference is the Sicilian is dynamic, exciting, and richly imbalanced whereas the Grunfeld feels... dull.
Gruenfeld is dull? Then you may say Slav is exciting and dynamics. Slav has tension in the center in the beginning.
Gruenfeld: Black completely surrenders the center to White in the beginning except for Gruenfled Slav. That's why white has so many lines to choose. Black struggles to take the center back. Often, Black just let white have the center thru out the game.
Controlling the center, can white demolish black? The answer is in the game.
Well, Black can try drawish position with Gruenfeld Slav. But that's the last option.
Here is an interesting game. I ended with draw.
The Exchange used to be the most popular choice for white back in the 80's at Grandmaster level. Was suggested it may actually refute the Gruenfeld. As a result, few masters played the Gruenfeld then.
Today, many GMs play the Gruenfeld with black. And almost no GM's use the exchange anymore.
Does anybody know why?
Very popular, but extremely hard to memorize. Basically, if you are not prepared to spend a few hours before each game revising variations, you had better not try it...
I went over your game Bean, hope you didn't mind. It's quite a good game, but you could have played on and gone for the win. There were some sensitive spots with only moves where you could have thrown it away however so agreeing to a draw was somewhat reasonable.
Oops, said pass at the end when I meant push lol! Also meant attacker push the g-pawn obviously.
Very popular, but extremely hard to memorize. Basically, if you are not prepared to spend a few hours before each game revising variations, you had better not try it...
The Grunfeld isn't too hard to memorize (now memorizing so many trees 20 moves deep is another thing, memorizing two or so isn't bad). I rather play chess than memory so I opt for the Queen's Indian and when I am in the mood for memory go with the Leningrad Dutch instead. I'm particularly fond of ...Qe8 systems with the idea of pushing the e-pawn, where white usually captures en passant and I recapture with a Na6-Nc5-Nxe6 and sometime even a Bxe6.
I went over your game Bean, hope you didn't mind. It's quite a good game, but you could have played on and gone for the win. There were some sensitive spots with only moves where you could have thrown it away however so agreeing to a draw was somewhat reasonable.
Oops, said pass at the end when I meant push lol! Also meant attacker push the g-pawn obviously.
Thanks brother for a very good analysis. I really appreciate it. The reason I opted for a draw was I had more than 100 online games. And I thought the rooks would be exchanged, leaving Q+K+P vs Q+K+P end game that ended mostly in draw.
For this game I didn't look up in game explorer. My analysis is only 5-6 moves deep at most.
Thank you, brother.
Any thoughts on the neo grunfeld? White could play 3.Nf3 instead of Nc3 to avoid the grunfeld proper. At this point black goes for the neo or KID?