Question for King's Indian Attack players

Do you usually play it from the 1. Nf3 move order or the 1. e4 move order? Bonus points for why!

Me first. I have played several hundred KIA games OTB, and all but maybe 5 came from the 1. Nf3 or 1. g3 move order.

I have started to experiment with the 1. e4, 2. d3, 3. Nd2 move order on the site, meeting 1. ... e5 with 2. f4 and the King's Gambit.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
Do you usually play it from the 1. Nf3 move order or the 1. e4 move order? Bonus points for why!

Me first. I have played several hundred KIA games OTB, and all but maybe 5 came from the 1. Nf3 or 1. g3 move order.

I have started to experiment with the 1. e4, 2. d3, 3. Nd2 move order on the site, meeting 1. ... e5 with 2. f4 and the King's Gambit.

I would suggest looking at your opponents opening history if you can as there is no right or wrong answer.
1. e4 works ok if you are happy playing the King's Gambit

1. e4 e6
2. d3 d5
3. Qe2 is interesting eg Nf6
4. Nf3 c5
5. g3 Be7
6. Bg2 Nc6
7. 00 00
8. e5 Nd7
9. c4! is better for white

however
1. e4 c5 is a problem as
2. d3 gives nothing after d5

and
1. e4 c6
2. d3 doesn't really excite either

you also need a opening for
1. e4 Nf6 as
2. d3 is rubbish

If you are a died in the wool KIA player and not familiar with all the transpositions/best moves available after 1. Nf3 or are not happy playing Sicilians after 1. e4, I would suggest playing 1. g3 unless you know your opponent.

Hope this helps

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
Do you usually play it from the 1. Nf3 move order or the 1. e4 move order? Bonus points for why!

Me first. I have played several hundred KIA games OTB, and all but maybe 5 came from the 1. Nf3 or 1. g3 move order.

I have started to experiment with the 1. e4, 2. d3, 3. Nd2 move order on the site, meeting 1. ... e5 with 2. f4 and the King's Gambit.

I play 1. e4. If my opponent meets it with 1..... e5, I play the Scotch and have an excellent record with it. If you're a KIA player the only other line you need worry about is 1 ...... d4 anything else is a novelty item or standard lines.

1. g3 or 1. Nf3. More often than not 1. g3 because if black then plays 1. ... e5 I get to go for variations of the English that I happen to like. If I play 1. Nf3 I often end up in something that looks suspiciously like a Slav or Semi Slav and have discovered I don't really like that sort of position.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
Do you usually play it from the 1. Nf3 move order or the 1. e4 move order? Bonus points for why!

Me first. I have played several hundred KIA games OTB, and all but maybe 5 came from the 1. Nf3 or 1. g3 move order.

I have started to experiment with the 1. e4, 2. d3, 3. Nd2 move order on the site, meeting 1. ... e5 with 2. f4 and the King's Gambit.

1.e4 because who is to say what black shall reply and there may be some instances in which one wishes to play an early or even an immediate f4. Although its been stated and i think statistically proven (not that statistics prove anything, paradox or what!) , Fischers assertion that its best played when black locks in his queens bishop with an early ....f6, either in the French or some variations of the Sicilian defence.

Originally posted by queenabber
I would suggest looking at your opponents opening history if you can as there is no right or wrong answer.
1. e4 works ok if you are happy playing the King's Gambit

1. e4 e6
2. d3 d5
3. Qe2 is interesting eg Nf6
4. Nf3 c5
5. g3 Be7
6. Bg2 Nc6
7. 00 00
8. e5 Nd7
9. c4! is better for white

however
1. e4 c5 is a problem as
2. d3 gives nothin ...[text shortened]... s after 1. e4, I would suggest playing 1. g3 unless you know your opponent.

Hope this helps

I was asking out of curiosity, so this wasn't a "right or wrong answer" kind of question, but thanks for your quality response!

I am very comfortable with it from any move order, but I am always interested to know how other practitioners go about it.

The 1. e4 c5 2. d3 d5 move order is rare, but the standard 3. Nd2 is OK, or the Chigorin/Morozevich 3. Qe2 approach is a more creative option.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
1.e4 because who is to say what black shall reply and there may be some instances in which one wishes to play an early or even an immediate f4. Although its been stated and i think statistically proven (not that statistics prove anything, paradox or what!) , Fischers assertion that its best played when black locks in his queens bishop with an early ....f6, either in the French or some variations of the Sicilian defence.

It's funny you should mention Fischer, as I am working on a project about his apporach to the KIA.

I had just finished my MBA in 2007, and since I was still in "academic study" gear, I decided to study Fischer's approach to the KIA as though I were a chess student writing a thesis. (Three years later it is 160 pages and still a work in progress, as I have 2 little girls!)

Fischer played the KIA from the 1. Nf3 move order up through 1962, and then transitioned to the 1. e4 move order for the rest of his career. He primarily used the 1. e4 move order KIA against the French and Caro Kann.

He also used it against the Sicilian via the 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d3 move order for exactly the reason you cited- when black plays an early ...e6, it invites a transposition to the KIA/French Defense complex, and the KIA scores well there.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I was asking out of curiosity, so this wasn't a "right or wrong answer" kind of question, but thanks for your quality response!

I am very comfortable with it from any move order, but I am always interested to know how other practitioners go about it.

The 1. e4 c5 2. d3 d5 move order is rare, but the standard 3. Nd2 is OK, or the Chigorin/Morozevich 3. Qe2 approach is a more creative option.

Curious you happy with
1. e4 c5
2. d3 d5 (maybe rare but best imo!)

personally I am not.

I think if black plays a g6 set-up there is every chance of ending up with a KID colours resversed where white has gone for an inferior line.

I therefore feel
2. Nf3 is required

2.... Nc6 is not a problem for me as I don't fear open Sicilians when black plays an e5 system ( plus white always has Bb5 as a playable alternative)

2.... d6 I think white needs to play open silicians although I must admit I have toyed with the Kopec system with 3. c3

2.....e6
3. d3 is fine

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
It's funny you should mention Fischer, as I am working on a project about his apporach to the KIA.

I had just finished my MBA in 2007, and since I was still in "academic study" gear, I decided to study Fischer's approach to the KIA as though I were a chess student writing a thesis. (Three years later it is 160 pages and still a work in progress, as I ...[text shortened]... it invites a transposition to the KIA/French Defense complex, and the KIA scores well there.

wow, that is most excellent, is it a personal project or do you plan to publish it? i
would be quite interested in reading it to be honest for at present i am wading my
way through Andrew Soltis book on Fischer, Fischer rediscovered. One of my all
time favourite games, was played not by Fischer although i am familiar with his
famous game against Sherwin, but by Petrosian, a truly beautiful and stunning
game of pure strategy!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wow, that is most excellent, is it a personal project or do you plan to publish it? i
would be quite interested in reading it to be honest for at present i am wading my
way through Andrew Soltis book on Fischer, Fischer rediscovered. One of my all
time favourite games, was played not by Fischer although i am familiar with his
famous game ag ...[text shortened]... 6 25.Bxd5 Rad8 26.Bxe6+ Kg7 27.axb5 Bxb5 28.d5 f4 29.Qg4 h6 30.Nh3 1-0[/pgn]

The guys at my club tell me I should publish it, but I am doing it as a method of study. I'm not sure people would be interested in a book by a non-titled player. Mostly I have

a) collected and distilled (compared/contrasted) GM analysis of his relevant games;

b) compared his play to current theory/shown where he added to current theory; and

c) identified patterns and other salient features in his KIA games.

Very briefly, I can tell you that he loved getting a pawn structure where the white and black d-pawns were traded off, and the white pawn structure runs a2, b2, c3, e4, f4, g3, h2. It is similar to the modern "Polar Bear" structure that comes from Henrik Danielsen's unique take on the "Leningrad Bird", but from a different move order.

He also liked to reach a semi-static situation where he made multiple moves redeploying his queen's knight to provoke weaknesses in the black position.

Paul

Originally posted by queenabber
Curious you happy with
1. e4 c5
2. d3 d5 (maybe rare but best imo!)

personally I am not.

I think if black plays a g6 set-up there is every chance of ending up with a KID colours resversed where white has gone for an inferior line.

I therefore feel
2. Nf3 is required

2.... Nc6 is not a problem for me as I don't fear open Sicilians when b ...[text shortened]... although I must admit I have toyed with the Kopec system with 3. c3

2.....e6
3. d3 is fine

Good stuff- thanks!

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
The guys at my club tell me I should publish it, but I am doing it as a method of study. I'm not sure people would be interested in a book by a non-titled player. Mostly I have

a) collected and distilled (compared/contrasted) GM analysis of his relevant games;

b) compared his play to current theory/shown where he added to current theory; and

moves redeploying his queen's knight to provoke weaknesses in the black position.

Paul

Title smitle, some of the best chess books i have read have been from untitled players
(greenpawns rampant chess), and some of the worst from GMs (paul motwanis, starr
chess is an appalling chess book). Also i have a little book which i treasure very much
by an excellent yet untitled player, W. John Lutes on the Tennison gambit, and a
wonderful little book it is as well, you see, we chess players are not so deluded to
think that because a GM puts his name on the cover that the book shall be any more
practical or a good read than if it is by some enthusiastic amateur, for it is well known,
that the enthusiastic amateur may indeed convey ideas in a way that escapes the
grandmaster, for not all are good story tellers, nor able to communicate and connect
with the reader. Was not Morphy himself an enthusiastic amateur?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Title smitle, some of the best chess books i have read have been from untitled players
(greenpawns rampant chess), and some of the worst from GMs (paul motwanis, starr
chess is an appalling chess book). Also i have a little book which i treasure very much
by an excellent yet untitled player, W. John Lutes on the Tennison gambit, and a
wonder ...[text shortened]... e to communicate and connect
with the reader. Was not Morphy himself an enthusiastic amateur?

hello Paul, hope i have not put you off, it was meant to be a source of encouragement not of discouragement.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
It's funny you should mention Fischer, as I am working on a project about his apporach to the KIA.

I had just finished my MBA in 2007, and since I was still in "academic study" gear, I decided to study Fischer's approach to the KIA as though I were a chess student writing a thesis. (Three years later it is 160 pages and still a work in progress, as I ...[text shortened]... it invites a transposition to the KIA/French Defense complex, and the KIA scores well there.

This does indeed sound like a very interesting project.
Have you consulted "Pal Benko - My Life, Games and Compositions" by Benko, Silman and Watson? Fischer learned the KIA from Benko.

To answer the original question: If I play the KIA, it's usually via a 1.g3 move order.

After reading the title to this thread, I almost posted a new thread.

Title: Question for Philidor players

Post: Why?