King's Indian

Originally posted by Kepler
I'm not sure which opening Seirawan is worried about, I've never read his book. The 1. Nf2 move order can lead to a reversed King's indian, hence the Kingis Indian Attack rather than Defence, but that is not something that white needs to be really scared about. Black generally finds it easier to equalise against the KIA, especially the 1. Nf3 version, but tha to dust it is a good tool. I guess you just have to avoid Seirawan's nasty line for black!

I think (if I recall correctly -- I only photocopied some pages long ago and don't have them handy) that Seirawan recommended an unvarying Nf3, g3, Bg2, o-o move order for White. This allowed openings like 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 e5 (and even worse). I just don't recall the details. Of course, White could play 2.d4 to this, and so forth, but all I remember is that, with the move order suggested by Seirawan, it didn't look like what I wanted to play as White.

Edit: taking a look at this in the databases, I think perhaps the opening was 1.Nf3 c5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 e5 4.o-o d5 because I recall that Black had attained a more or less saturated occupation of the center. What is this variation of the KIA called?

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
I think (if I recall correctly -- I only photocopied some pages long ago and don't have them handy) that Seirawan recommended an unvarying Nf3, g3, Bg2, o-o move order for White. This allowed openings like 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 e5 (and even worse). I just don't recall the details. Of course, White could play 2.d4 to this, and so forth, but all I rem ...[text shortened]... a more or less saturated occupation of the center. What is this variation of the KIA called?

There is nothing wrong with varying the move order. 1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Nc6 and I would probably play Bg2 but could play d4 if i felt like playing something different. So 3. Bg2 e5 4. d3 Nf6 5. O-O

Black has the centre but a player of hypermodern openings will view that as black overextending himself and setting up a nice juicy target. I think I would prefer it if black did not play e5 (and very often he doesn't) but I don't mind the position.

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
taking a look at this in the databases, I think perhaps the opening was 1.Nf3 c5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 e5 4.o-o d5 because I recall that Black had attained a more or less saturated occupation of the center. What is this variation of the KIA called?

That's a reversed King's Indian Defence. Good for black but not exactly bad for white. Depends on the sort of positions you like I guess.

Originally posted by Kepler
There is nothing wrong with varying the move order. 1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Nc6 and I would probably play Bg2 but could play d4 if i felt like playing something different. So 3. Bg2 e5 4. d3 Nf6 5. O-O

Black has the centre but a player of hypermodern openings will view that as black overextending himself and setting up a nice juicy target. I think I would prefer it if black did not play e5 (and very often he doesn't) but I don't mind the position.

I didn't mean (by quoting Seirawan) to imply that a rigid move order (much less the one he supplied) was desirable or de rigueur. Frankly, Seirawan's text alternated in its idiom from the childish -- he described this move order as "building a little house for his king" -- to the fiendish (lots of sadistic-sounding torture analogies). I suppose it speaks only to my own conditioning via American television, especially in the decades constituting my "formative years", when I say I must consciously resist a strong temptation to characterize this as typical of "the Arabic mind" (as if there were such a thing).

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
I didn't mean (by quoting Seirawan) to imply that a rigid move order (much less the one he supplied) was desirable or de rigueur. Frankly, Seirawan's text alternated in its idiom from the childish -- he described this move order as "building a little house for his king" -- to the fiendish (lots of sadistic-sounding torture analogies). I suppose it spea ...[text shortened]... on to characterize this as typical of "the Arabic mind" (as if there were such a thing).

Seirawan isn't the only one who describes the moves as building a house for the king but that sort of misses the point. Yes, the king's position will be secure but the bishop on g2 has great offensive power. I think Seirawan's book is intended for beginners so the rigid move order is probably intended to avoid confusion. The fiendish bits are probably intended to engage the reader's attention. The KIA is a good solid opening for beginners but I reckon Seirawn is doing them a disservice suggesting the 1. Nf3 version. They should play 1. e4 and use the KIA to avoid having to learn too many theory laden lines if black does not play e5 in reply to 1. e4.

Originally posted by Kepler
Seirawan isn't the only one who describes the moves as building a house for the king but that sort of misses the point. Yes, the king's position will be secure but the bishop on g2 has great offensive power. I think Seirawan's book is intended for beginners so the rigid move order is probably intended to avoid confusion. The fiendish bits are probably intende ...[text shortened]... oid having to learn too many theory laden lines if black does not play e5 in reply to 1. e4.

That sounds like good advice, provided one wants to play 1.e4 as White and face the loads of theory inherent in 1...e5 and 1...c5.

Of course Seirawan was simplifying for novices (include me in that category), but he didn't have to write (on the one hand) as if he were addressing a six year-old, and (on the other hand) as if he were trying to titillate the Marquis de Sade. I noticed that after Silman co-authored a book or two with Seirawan he caught the latter bug a little, but fortunately it seems to exist in a less virulent form with him.

Frankly, I find my attention disrupted rather than engaged when a chess author writes about the pleasures of "torturing his opponent for a very long time", as opposed to (say) writing about using prophylaxis to stop counterplay while expanding a space advantage in positional play. I'm quite happy being ruthless playing chess, but that is because I am engaged in an abstract (if competitive) problem-solving endeavor, not rubbing my hands together with gruesome glee contemplating my opponent's awful psychological distress (which, in fact, he shouldn't feel provided he regards the game with reasonably good perspective).

But I'm afraid I'm both going off on a tangent and getting cranky.

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
That sounds like good advice, provided one wants to play 1.e4 as White and face the loads of theory inherent in 1...e5 and 1...c5.

KIA can be played against 1.... c5. It is best against the e6 varieties of Sicilian but works against the others as well and can be a bit of a nasty experience for a Sicilian player who is expecting lots of tactics.

Originally posted by Kepler
KIA can be played against 1.... c5. It is best against the e6 varieties of Sicilian but works against the others as well and can be a bit of a nasty experience for a Sicilian player who is expecting lots of tactics.

Thanks for pointing that out. I stand corrected. But how does White stand after (for example): 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. g3 d5 4. exd5 exd5 5. Bg2 Nf6 ?

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
Thanks for pointing that out. I stand corrected. But how does White stand after (for example): 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. g3 d5 4. exd5 exd5 5. Bg2 Nf6 ?

I would play 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d3 because d5 as a reply to 3. g3 stops the KIA in its tracks. With 3. d3 I am heading more towards a KIA against the French rather than a Sicilian. The same move order works against the d6 and Nc6 Sicilians.

Originally posted by Kepler
I would play 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d3 because d5 as a reply to 3. g3 stops the KIA in its tracks. With 3. d3 I am heading more towards a KIA against the French rather than a Sicilian. The same move order works against the d6 and Nc6 Sicilians.

After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d3 Nc3 4.g3 I'd be strongly tempted to play 4...Nge7 on the basis of database stats, but I admit that my research here is superficial. What do you think of this line for Black?

I believe also that your point was about taking Sicilian players out of their game, and I suspect you're right that few of them would be prepared to play this way.

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d3 Nc3 4.g3 I'd be strongly tempted to play 4...Nge7 on the basis of database stats, but I admit that my research here is superficial. What do you think of this line for Black?

I believe also that your point was about taking Sicilian players out of their game, and I suspect you're right that few of them would be prepared to play this way.

Not bad. The supposed way to continue is 5. Bg2 g6 6. O-O Bg7 which just transposes to the mainline. I would be tempted to play 5. h4.

This not only takes Sicilian players out of their game, it can take them into totally unfamiliar territory which is very good in over the board play. Of course, on sites like this the advantage is not so marked since a player has access to books and databases.

Originally posted by Kepler
Not bad. The supposed way to continue is 5. Bg2 g6 6. O-O Bg7 which just transposes to the mainline. I would be tempted to play 5. h4.

This not only takes Sicilian players out of their game, it can take them into totally unfamiliar territory which is very good in over the board play. Of course, on sites like this the advantage is not so marked since a player has access to books and databases.

A couple of years ago when I was just starting to take more of an interest in chess and had just joined a chess club I was using the KIA. It was relatively easy to learn with the simple and interchangeable move order. It also seemed to come as a surprise to many of my opponents. Typically I ended up with a very crowded board reaching 15 sometimes 20 moves without any exchanges and I was unable to fight my way out of the muddle against stronger opponents.

I've found Seirawans books to be among the best with clear explanations and a tone that I really liked....until the openings book which was disappointing, although I haven't spent enough time with it to be able to say quite why.

My experience with the KIA is similar to Mahout's--the opening's almost idiot proof. It seems to keep me out of early trouble, anyway.

What's wrong with playing it after 1. e4 e5? Doesn't 2. d3 take care of potential problems? Sure, it's passive and black gets to develop freely with an early space advantage, but white doesn't seem to have too much trouble getting a decent middlegame.

Thanks--good discussion.

Originally posted by more guinness
My experience with the KIA is similar to Mahout's--the opening's almost idiot proof. It seems to keep me out of early trouble, anyway.

What's wrong with playing it after 1. e4 e5? Doesn't 2. d3 take care of potential problems? Sure, it's passive and black gets to develop freely with an early space advantage, but white doesn't seem to have too much trouble getting a decent middlegame.

Thanks--good discussion.

I would think the problem is that in the KIA white aspires to eventually play e5 himself; also after black plays e5 the fianchettoed B on g2 is reduced to little more than a pawn. Its still playable, though, its just that white is not getting any kind of advantage at all here. That is the problem with system openings, when you just play them mindlessly and automatically then you condemn yourself to many passive looking games.

I do think the KIA is nice against the French and the e6 Sicilians though (because their structure lends itself well to the e4-e5 push with lasting pressure on the king's side).

Agreed. Thanks.