Since the theory for the KID seems to change every day right now, is the 9.b4 line of the KID (The Bayonet Attack) considered best for white? Of particular interest to me is the line 9.b4 Nh5 10.Re1 f5 11.Ng5 Nf6 12.f3 (Or Bf3, IDK which one is more popular right now) 12...Kh8 13.Ne6!? Bxe6 14.dxe6 Nh5 as in the game Van Wely - Radjabov Corus 2007 which Radjabov won handily.
[Event "Corus Wijk aan Zee"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee"]
[Date "2007.01.13"]
[Round "1"]
[White "GM Van Wely, Loek(NED)"]
[Black "GM Radjabov, Teimour(AZE)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E97"]
[WhiteElo "2676"]
[BlackElo "2729"]
[Annotator "Holger_Lieske"]
[PlyCount "80"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5
Ne7 9. b4 Nh5 10. Re1 f5 11. Ng5 Nf6 12. f3 Kh8 13. Ne6 Bxe6 14. dxe6 Nh5 15.
g3 Bf6 16. c5 f4 17. g4 Ng7 18. Bc4 Nc6 19. cxd6 cxd6 20. Ne2 Rc8 21. Bd5 Nxb4
22. Rb1 Nc2 23. Rf1 b6 24. Rb2 Ne3 25. Bxe3 fxe3 26. Qb3 Bg5 27. Nc3 Rc5 28.
Na4 Rc7 29. Nc3 Qc8 30. Nb5 Rc1 31. Rb1 Rxf1+ 32. Rxf1 Qc5 33. Kg2 Rc8 34. Re1
a6 35. Na3 Qd4 36. Re2 Rc3 37. Qb2 h5 38. h3 Qd1 39. Bb3 Rxb3 40. axb3 Nxe6 0-1
I'm also curious about a couple of Magnus Carlsen moves that he has used recently - first 9.a4:
[Event "GM"]
[Site "Biel SUI"]
[Date "2006.07.25"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Carlsen, M."]
[Black "Morozevich, A."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E97"]
[WhiteElo "2675"]
[BlackElo "2731"]
[Annotator ",A"]
[PlyCount "83"]
[EventDate "2006.07.24"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "10"]
[EventCountry "SUI"]
[EventCategory "17"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2006.07.31"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5
Ne7 9. a4 $146 (9. b4 a5 10. bxa5 Rxa5 11. a4 b6 12. Nd2 Nd7 13. Nb3 Ra8 (13...
Ra6) 14. a5) (9. Ne1) 9... a5 10. b3 (10. Ne1 Nd7 11. Be3 f5 12. f3 Nc5 13. Nd3
b6 14. b4 Nxd3 {'!?' Bulletin.} (14... axb4 $6 15. Nxb4 Bd7 {>= 15...Ra5} 16.
a5 bxa5 17. Bxc5 dxc5 18. Nd3 $16) 15. Qxd3 axb4 16. Nb5 Kh8 {
'!' Bulletin. Bulletin: '/\ Ne7-g8-f6'} 17. Qb3 Ng8 18. Qxb4 Nf6 (18... Bh6 $5
19. Bxh6 Nxh6 20. Qd2 Ng8 21. a5 bxa5 22. Rxa5 Bd7 {=/=/+}) 19. exf5 gxf5 20.
Bg5 (20. a5 $2 bxa5 21. Rxa5 c5 $1 $19) 20... h6 21. Bh4 Bd7 22. Ra3 Qb8 {
'!?' Bulletin.} 23. Bf2 Rg8 24. Rb1 {Bulletin: '/\ Nxc7'} Nh5 25. Kh1 (25. a5
$5 Bxb5 26. Qxb5 bxa5 27. Rxa5 Nf4 28. Bf1 e4 29. Qxb8 Rgxb8 30. Rxb8+ Rxb8 31.
fxe4 fxe4 32. Be3 Nd3 33. Bxd3 exd3 34. Ra3 Rb4 35. Rxd3 Rxc4 $10) 25... Qd8
26. a5 Bxb5 27. Qxb5 bxa5 28. g3 (28. Rxa5 $2 Rb8 29. Qxb8 Qxb8 30. Rxb8 Rxb8
31. Rb5 Ra8 $15) 28... f4 {'!' Bulletin.} 29. g4 e4 {'!' Bulletin.} 30. fxe4 {
'?' Bulletin.} (30. gxh5 $1 e3 31. Bg1 Qg5 32. Bd3 Qxh5 33. Rf1 $13) 30... Nf6
31. Bh4 Qe7 32. Bf3 Qe5 33. Re1 Nh7 34. Qd7 Bf6 35. Bxf6+ Nxf6 36. Qf5 Qxf5 37.
exf5 Nxg4 38. Bxg4 Rxg4 39. Rh3 Kg7 40. Re7+ Kf6 41. Re6+ Kxf5 42. Rhxh6 Rf8
43. Rh5+ Rg5 44. Rxg5+ Kxg5 45. c5 a4 46. cxd6 cxd6 47. Rxd6 Ra8 48. Re6 a3 49.
Re1 Kf5 50. h4 f3 51. d6 a2 52. Ra1 Kf4 {Bulletin: '/\ Kf4-g3, Ra8-b8-b1#'} 53.
Kh2 f2 {'!' Bulletin.} 54. d7 Kf3 55. Rc1 a1=Q 56. Rxa1 Rxa1 57. d8=Q Rh1+ 58.
Kxh1 f1=Q+ 59. Kh2 Qg2# {0-1 Kortschnoj,V-Kasparov,G/Barcelona 1989}) 10... Nd7
11. Ba3 Bh6 (11... f5 12. Ng5 $1 Nf6 13. c5 (13. Ne6 Bxe6 14. dxe6)) 12. b4
axb4 13. Bxb4 f5 14. Nd2 Kh8 15. a5 Rf7 16. Nb5 Nf6 17. c5 dxc5 18. Bc3 c6 19.
dxc6 bxc6 20. Na3 fxe4 21. Nac4 Ned5 22. Bxe5 Bg7 23. Nd6 Re7 24. N2c4 Be6 25.
a6 Nb4 26. Qc1 Nd3 27. Bxd3 exd3 28. Qc3 Bxc4 29. Qxc4 Qg8 30. Qxc5 d2 31. Rad1
Rxa6 32. Rxd2 Nd5 33. Bxg7+ Rxg7 34. h3 Qe6 35. Rb1 h6 36. Qc4 Rb6 37. Rxb6
Qe1+ 38. Kh2 Nxb6 39. Qf4 Nd5 40. Rxd5 cxd5 41. Qf8+ Kh7 42. Ne8 1-0
and second 9.Kh1!? which I really like, it seems the plan is simply to shove the rook on the g file, push the g pawn, and mate:
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2006.??.??"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Carlsen, Magnus (NOR)"]
[Black "Radjabov, Teimour (AZE)"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "E97"]
[Annotator "Bosimon"]
[PlyCount "59"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5
Ne7 9. Kh1 Nd7 10. g4 Kh8 11. Rg1 a5 12. Be3 Nc5 13. Rc1 Bd7 14. b3 Ng8 15. Nd2
f6 16. h4 f5 17. g5 Nxe4 18. Ndxe4 fxe4 19. Nxe4 Ne7 20. Bg4 Nf5 21. Bxf5 Bxf5
22. f3 Qd7 23. Rg3 Rf7 24. Kg2 b6 25. Qe2 Raf8 26. Rh1 Kg8 27. a3 Rb8 28. a4
Rbf8 29. Qd1 Rb8 30. Qd3 1/2-1/2
Originally posted by ChessJesterWell that's all mainline stuff, move 9 seems to be where white really decides how he's going to play - 9.b4 seems to say white's taking over on the queenside whereas 9.Kh1 seems to be white striking back on the kingside.
I'm rather new to this type of position but I've noticed that the pawn formation c4-d5-e4 gives white a space advantage but I can't see how it can be decisive. Anyway, I am still looking over these games, thanks for posting them, it gives me some ideas.
Originally posted by cmsMasterinterestingly enough, I've never faced the bayonet attack...maybe I'll look at Play the King's Indian when i get home (posting this in computer lab at school...who pays attention in french class anyways?)
Well that's all mainline stuff, move 9 seems to be where white really decides how he's going to play - 9.b4 seems to say white's taking over on the queenside whereas 9.Kh1 seems to be white striking back on the kingside.
Originally posted by YUG0slavWell I don't take French, but who pays attention in Spanish or German class anyways? springs to mind. Yeah, I'm curious what PTKI has to say about it. I'm actually not that surprised that you haven't seen the Bayonet Attack yet, it seems like a lot of white 1.d4 players don't want to get into deep theory - maybe not, but it sure does seem that way based on what I've seen.
interestingly enough, I've never faced the bayonet attack...maybe I'll look at Play the King's Indian when i get home (posting this in computer lab at school...who pays attention in french class anyways?)
Have you seen 9.a4 or 9.Kh1 though?
Originally posted by schakuhrAh, thanks for the info. Have you ever used the line?
Van Wely has played that line extensively. He's fought an attrition war with Kotronias in that line, and I believe he has said at some point that it is winning for white.
I may have some of his analysis (in a dutch chess magazine) lying around somewhere.
Originally posted by cmsMasterWell, this is deep theory stuff and well beyond me. So far, Van Wely - Radjabov have reached 14. dxe6 three times. In the FIDE World Cup 2005 Radjabov played 14. ... fxe4 and lost in 40.
Since the theory for the KID seems to change every day right now, is the 9.b4 line of the KID (The Bayonet Attack) considered best for white? Of particular interest to me is the line 9.b4 Nh5 10.Re1 f5 11.Ng5 Nf6 12.f3 (Or Bf3, IDK which one is more popular right now) 12...Kh8 13.Ne6!? Bxe6 14.dxe6 Nh5 as in the game Van Wely - Radjabov Corus 2007 which 4 36. Re2 Rc3 37. Qb2 h5 38. h3 Qd1 39. Bb3 Rxb3 40. axb3 Nxe6 0-1
Radjabov decided that was clearly not on, so in the 2007 Amber Blindfold played 14. ... Nh5. Van Wely responded 15. c5, losing in 74 moves.
Van Wely's new move this game was 17. g4 and he still lost. Incidentally, Shirov in the same Corus tournament played 17. Kg2, also losing.
Objectively speaking, Black seems to have the edge.
Originally posted by cmsMasterI have seen a4, but I've run into the 4 pawns and fianchetto more than anything else (sorta strange) But yea, a lot of d4 players wanted avoid tactical, theoretical games (or they would play e4) which is a reason why I play the KID, it presents them with something they generally dislike.
Well I don't take French, but who pays attention in Spanish or German class anyways? springs to mind. Yeah, I'm curious what PTKI has to say about it. I'm actually not that surprised that you haven't seen the Bayonet Attack yet, it seems like a lot of white 1.d4 players don't want to get into deep theory - maybe not, but it sure does seem that way based on what I've seen.
Have you seen 9.a4 or 9.Kh1 though?