Originally posted by rbmorrisThe KIA is a KID in reverse, it is effective against e6 Sicilians, the French Defense and sometimes the Caro-Kann, as shown by Bobby Fischer in his early career. Those who play, say a French Defense, are usually not prepared for one side attacking king and another queen, so I find the KIA works best against French players.
Does anyone know the big difference between the King's Indian Attack and the Reti? They seem pretty similar to me.
The Reti, on the other hand, is a weird opening in Reti's hypermodem schooldom, IMHO, the opening deliberately cramps white for nothing, it's not a closed up, doubled edged, flanking opening like the KIA. If black plays careful, doesn't underestimate the opening as "noobness", he should win... I do play the Reti sometimes against computers.
It does look similar sometimes because it partly depends on how black plays. White can have the same Kia looking setup. If black plays Nf6, g6, Bg7, it's called a reti. If black plays d5, c6 or e6 it's a kia.
The other thing is that kia is always Nf3, g3, Bg2. The reti may or may not have g3 and Bg2.
Actually, I don't think these two openings are similar at all. While they may share certain things in common (1.Nf3 and a kingside fianchetto, although the KIA doesn't have to start with the knight move), the KIA prepares the e4 advance and uses the e pawn as a lever to pry open the position or to cut the board in half. The attack for white is generally on the kingside.
The Reti, on the other hand, follows 1. NF3 with 2c4 and controls the center via one or two fianchettoed bishops and his knights. White generally advances on the queenside and uses his center pawns to strike at the center when appropriate.
I respectfully disagree with the poster who claims that the Reti is a "weird" opening that black should win if he plays well. The opening is played at all levels with white winning more than half the games. When Kasparov needed to win (as white) against Karpov to keep his title, he played a Reti (via transposition from an English, I think). I personally think the Reti leads to fascinating strategic positions.
Scott
Originally posted by smrex13Ditto!
I respectfully disagree with the poster who claims that the Reti is a "weird" opening that black should win if he plays well. The opening is played at all levels with white winning more than half the games. When Kasparov needed to win (as white) against Karpov to keep his title, he played a Reti (via transposition from an English, I think). I personally think the Reti leads to fascinating strategic positions.
Scott
[/b]
Originally posted by smrex13Yes, that's my definition of the Reti. I'm surprised how many different definitions I've come across even from very skilled players.
Actually, I don't think these two openings are similar at all. While they may share certain things in common (1.Nf3 and a kingside fianchetto, although the KIA doesn't have to start with the knight move), the KIA prepares the e4 advance and uses the e pawn as a lever to pry open the position or to cut the board in half. The attack for white is generally ...[text shortened]... I think). I personally think the Reti leads to fascinating strategic positions.
Scott
I often play the Reti, and although the dark squared bishop is a problem, it has a lot of traps that'll win pawns against weaker players. I'm considering a switch to 1. d4, however, because the Reti isn't quite as effective at higher levels.
Originally posted by ark13No opening is terribly effective against better players, Ark; you shouldn't abandon a preferred opening because you aren't winning as much at "higher levels". You won't at first, anyway and if you have a familiarity with the opening and change to something you don't know as well it's likely to be worse. If you like the Reti, stay with it; changing to d4 is going to make you learn a lot more detailed opening theory as White.
Yes, that's my definition of the Reti. I'm surprised how many different definitions I've come across even from very skilled players.
I often play the Reti, and although the dark squared bishop is a problem, it has a lot of traps that'll win pawns against weaker players. I'm considering a switch to 1. d4, however, because the Reti isn't quite as effective at higher levels.
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks for the advice. I'll take it into consideration. The reason I'm considering switching is because I think the strength of the Reti lies in it's early traps which will win some games. But against better players, I never use those traps. And I usually transpose into a queen's gambit position, or a KID position. Both of which I like, but may have not played Nf3 right away.
No opening is terribly effective against better players, Ark; you shouldn't abandon a preferred opening because you aren't winning as much at "higher levels". You won't at first, anyway and if you have a familiarity with the opening and change to something you don't know as well it's likely to be worse. If you like the Reti, stay with it; changing to d4 is going to make you learn a lot more detailed opening theory as White.
Thanks for the advice. I'll take it into consideration. The reason I'm considering switching is because I think the strength of the Reti lies in it's early traps which will win some games. But against better players, I never use those traps. And I usually transpose into a queen's gambit position, or a KID position. Both of which I like, but may have not played Nf3 right away.I'm not sure I entirely agree with the assertion that the strength of the Reti lies in some early traps to win a pawn or two or win some games. I would imagine that all openings have early traps if the opponent is not entirely famliar with the particular line. I think one of the strengths of the Reti is its transpositional possibilities (see Kramnik's games). For example, you can stay with the Reti in most lines, but when black plays d5 and c6, you could tranpose to the Slav. Or, after d5 and e6, you can go into a QGD. After 2...dxc4 you can transpose to a QGA. But the choice is entirely yours. This is one of the strengths of the opening, imho - white can really dictate the course of events. Perhaps it's not quite as strong as playing the latest theoretical lines against the benoni, benko, kid, qid, nimzo, dutch, qgd, qga, tango, etc. with 1.d4, but the time saved in study and the experience gained in the reti seems to me to be well worth the two or three percentage points that the opening gives away at GM level.
Just my two cents,
Scott
It's a question of style, I guess I think the Reti is bad, because it seems to kill my style/ability as a chess player. Yes, good players use the Reti, then again, Kasparov can win with any opening. Often, beteewn us amateurs, when I played the Reti, I often found myself geting cramped, solid, but cramped, and nothing much else, and most of it's traps never worked in tournament level games. The players in my club are very solid defensively, so boringly conservative, devoid of tactics, and often don't go on long winded adventures like I tend to do, so the Reti is obviously not suitable against such players in my eyes, but this a subject of opinion. I think the KIA gives you more options and style, again, an opinion. Then again, the Reti works well against me, but doesn't work well when I use it, so it's two hold, depends on your opponents style...