I advocate the czech benoni,although I don't think it's played much at the highest level but then I never cared about that 🙂
Never played the KID but I seem to remember hearing or reading it ran into troubles that have yet to be solved.I could be wrong though,maybe it is just currently out of fashion?
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34I've played the Dutch and the King's Indian, and take it from me - the King's Indian is better!
Take it from a guy who whose score v Black 1.d4 is very high.
Benko, Benoni or the KID.
The KID over everything, it's what two of the most aggresive players
in history played. Fishcer and Kasparov (you never saw those two playing
the Dutch - the Dutch sucks).
The trouble with the Dutch, especially the Stonewall, is that it is not very good against weaker players who just sit there waiting for you to do something. The King's Indian works very well against those players and gives you great chances against the stronger ones as well.
In my youth I toyed with the Budapest and even, God help me, the Englund gambit. But these are just openings with a few tricks. If White doesn't fall for them then you end up with a sterile position at best.
I like the idea of the Grunfeld and tried playing it for a while, but I got blown off the board too many times for my liking.
No doubt about it - the King's Indian is the best defence against 1.d4 for an aggressive player
Originally posted by vipiuThe Stonewall is probably easier to play, but I don't like it - too rigid. The Leningrad is definitely sharper.
which one is easier to play ? which one is more played at GM level ? which is sharper ? which requires more theory ?
Tell Malaniuk that the Dutch sucks; his record with it is very impressive. If a weaker player 'just sits there waiting for me to do something' then I can play whatever game I want! I will get in e5 without a struggle and can go for play on the Kingside, the center, or the Queenside as I prefer. Of course, the KID is very good, too, and it's good for a Leningrad player to be familiar with it. If White doesn't fight for e5 then Black can achieve a kind of KID setup where he has already pushed f5, without having to move the Knight out of the way of the f-pawn.
The KID is probably easier to understand and easier to play than the Leningrad, but I don't think that necessarily makes it 'better.'
2 edits
Originally posted by kmac27I played KID for a while, and even liked it, but it got so easily cramped (my fault of course, but still). then I tried leningrad dutch, and found it has everything I liked about KID, without any of it's drawbacks. they're very similar, and many fischer KID games act as learning material for leningrad. I can't see how someone can claim one is great and the other sucks.
I've played the kings indian and I just always get creamed!
polgar, topalov, tal, kramnik, spassky, korchnoi etc. have played it. here's one from topalov:
I liked leningrad so much that now I'm playing it with reversed colors as well.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Yes if no-one over 2750 plays the Dutch then it's unsound & I'm pretty sure it's no good for us guys.
Take it from a guy who whose score v Black 1.d4 is very high.
Benko, Benoni or the KID.
The KID over everything, it's what two of the most aggresive players
in history played. Fishcer and Kasparov (you never saw those two playing
the Dutch - the Dutch sucks).
Kasparov gave up the Gruenfeld and later the King's Indian because he found keeping ahead of theory to be too difficult. Weaker players (of course, for him that means 2600 level GMs) could get strong positions without much effort. But his problems are entirely different than any amateur player.
The KID was unfashionable in between Fischer and Kasparov. Nowadays Radjabov plays it but not many other top players. Same with the Gruenfeld - Svidler is the chief proponent. These openings will come back in fashion again.
I suggest playing the Dutch, it's perfectly fine.
2 edits
Originally posted by vipiume? it's still very much work in progress, but I started up with andrew martin's fox dvd (+ anti-dutch dvd, there seems to be surpringly many people who don't dare to enter the mainline. 🙂 ). it was a nice introduction, and now I'm working through valeri beim's 'understanding the leningrad dutch', which I've quite liked.
how did you learn Leningrad ? I am thinking to try it either...
henrik danielsen's commented videos on both leningrad and the especially the reversed leningrad have also been a great help in understanding the related types of positions: http://www.videochess.net/
here's the tal leningrad I meant to post earlier:
Originally posted by vipiuI just started playing it, took my beatings and learned from them. I'm lucky that my father is a teacher and also a strong player, so I always had a coach to help me learn from my mistakes.
how did you learn Leningrad ? I am thinking to try it either...
For a player looking to start playing it, I'd recommend the book "Leningrad System" by Stefan Kindermann as an excellent resource. This book is excellent! I wish I had had it when I first started playing the Dutch.