Is King's Indian Defense now obsolete?

It was a favorite of Fischer and Kasparov, but I was watching Agadamator recently and he said that Alphazero has pretty much decided King's Indian Defense is an outdated opening that isn't actually good... Truth to this?  Anyone heard similar things?  It definitely seems recently that Nimzo Indian Defense and Grunfeld have replaced it

Almost all hypermodern openings are more or less dubious, but only super GMs and engines can really prove that over the board. It seems The main problem with the KID is that white's queen side expansion is usually much faster and pressing than black's planned kingside attack.

more input! more opinions! feed the bear!

Top players who have played the King's Indian Defense within the past few months:

Anish Giri, Richard Rapport, Alireza Firouzja, Jorden Van Foreest, Levon Aronian, Magnus Carlsen, Alexander Grischuk ...

If the KID truly were busted, these players would've abandoned it. But they haven't ...

... So it isn't ...

It’s not obsolete.

* You’re

Oh wow, how wrong I was! Clearly the engine must be right! It is almost as if they sometimes evaluate positions wrong

Yes, I know

Yeah I think we both got it

Draw by repetition.

I am relevant and kind. I'ts not obselete, but if anyone can find an obsolete opening, look deeper at it and see if something fits your style. I used to play KID, find myself stuck in it sometimes, but prefer not to play it nowdays. But you cannot say I adapted less obsolete openings. As I play Scandinavian and Benoni, with all knives out. It's all about your mentality, your heroes, and what style of play you like. I like the chances in Benoni, and the calculus, I love the open play in Scandinavian. And that from someone who also plays an agressive English ( a much under estimated opening for winning in  Blitz). Peace out

The Kings Indian is not necessarily obsolete, it may just be tougher to play at higher levels as counters are very well-known

I don't think any opening is obsolete at my level (1400). I find it interesting when people of my elo play extremely complex book openings, because after the first few moves its a free for all cos it goes awry as we arnt good enough yet!

Yes I am friendly and just want to add, it is not refuted. Find a refuted opening, good luck, they said so of Benoni but now it is a stingray in Black's repertoire and both sides love to go into it. Find what fits your style of play and worry less about grand statements.

I am friendly. Peace outta here

To be fair, he is making the same mistake many people made when looking at the AlphaZero games.  People were claiming the Sicilian was "bad" because AlphaZero didn't like it.  However, when you look at why AlphaZero didn't like it, it was because it played both sides of it terribly (likely meaning it needed to be forced to play more training games in it in order to handle it better).  Similarly, people were stating that d4, c4, and Nf3 were superior to e4 because AlphaZero preferred them (again, without realizing it did so to avoid the Berlin and the Sicilian).  So the problem is not so much him displaying his lack of opening knowledge, but rather misinterpreting the results of a neural network experiment.

People have forced Leela to play the KID and to the surprise of no KID players, it found that it is completely playable (which is why we see it played quite often in ICCF games)

Unless you're over 2000+ rated OTB or like 2300+ on here, your opening choice does not matter.

Refuted openings or weak ones aren't going to be refuted by a 1200, or a 1500, or a 1800. we're not strong enough to know the refutation. you would need to play near perfect like the engines. 

the Sicilian Dragon is pretty much refuted at the highest level but its literally my main defense against E4 and I win close to 50% of my games with it.

Dont worry about opening choice, just play whatever you want until you get to those ratings i mentioned in the first paragraph

A0 can refute an opening in ways a human (or indeed, an engine with less think time and no mountain of tensor cores behind it) is utterly incapable of taking advantage of. It still sees human play at top level and people still win with it.

The DeepMind paper is well worth reading.  Not just for the impact to Chess, but it has some interesting insights into learning techniques (their point was not to make a powerful Chess engine, but use that to continue developing their AI).  When you let it choose its own path, it naturally migrated towards the things that were easier to understand.  When you force it to play more complicated things, it took it longer to understand them, but eventually played them well, too.  An interesting insight into human learning: if we are left to our own devices, we will naturally avoid things that we find too difficult, when it is precisely those things we need to explore in order to continue growing.

Not only do they not understand openings, the post-game computer analyses on this site tell me should be grabbing a free pawn instead of pressing on with an attack on my opponent's king. Computers don't think.

I think what he was getting at is the idea of just memorizing moves without understanding why you must play those moves and why your opponent must play certain moves will get you into trouble.

Perhaps, but credit should be given where credit is due.

AlphaZero stomped onto the chess scene using self-taught neural network technology. At that point, the developers of Stockfish and Komodo were still using laborious, human-written code.

AlphaZero dominated Stockfish in a way that we all are now familiar with. Since then, the DeepMind team has moved on to other things. (Creating a strong chess program was never their end goal. They simply used chess as a testing ground to evaluate their self-learning alogrithm. Their end goal is a general AI that can help solve bigger human problems, like disease, poverty, etc ... )

Now Stockfish, Komodo (and Leela) all use their own replicated versions of AlphaZero's NNUE technology, which nods to the significance of AlphaZero's quick arrival and departure.