Talk:King's Indian Attack
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article may be too technical for a general audience. Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details. See below for more information. |
Contents |
[edit] KIA against semi-open defenses
I've read that the KIA is slightly stronger against the French Defence than some other semi-open defenses such as the Caro-Kann, when 1.e4 c6 2.d3 e5 is supposed to allow Black to equalize fairly easily. Is this correct? Perhaps someone who understands the theory could discuss this in the article. Quale 15:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Partially. The KIA is considered good against the French, E5, D5. Its considered slighty weaker to C5. I don't know about the Caro Kann though. It could be its just that I've only read pro-KIA openings. Falphin 00:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Is the figure wrong?
I'm not an expert on this stuff, but the description for this opening always starts with 1.e4. That means white's king pawn moves to e4, right? That's not shown in the figure for this article. Is that an error?
[edit] Figure isn't wrong
KIA came from hyper-modern play where the center is firstly not captured. with 1.e4 white goes directly to the center but that's not the idea of king's indian attack. KIA starts usually with 1.Sf3 or 1.g3. But about the great flexibility of KIA a lot of not-KIA-players starts with 1.e4 and if needed they change to KIA later on. So, if you are a true KIA-player you don't play 1.e4. The fígure shows the standard formation of KIA. Other Systems are possible (Sf3, g3, Lg2, 0-0, d3 or Sf3, g3, Lg2, 0-0, d3, e4 or Sf3, g3, Lg2, 0-0, d3, Sbd2, e4). Each system has to be analyzed for it's own. (Excuse me for my bad english)
Lucy Sky —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.24.253.44 (talk • contribs).
As the article indicates, e4 at some point (possibly, but not necessarily, on the first move) is characteristic of the KIA. In light of that, I think the pawn should be on e4, and have changed the diagram accordingly. Krakatoa 04:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] KIA - Passive?
It's interesting that the KIA is listed as a passive opening - I personally am much more familiar with a very aggressive line of the KIA that might play more like : 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 e6 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.0-0 c5 5.d3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 Be7 7.e4 8.e5 after which point white would eventually play Bf4, reinforcing the e5 pawn, and the attacking force of the opening is revealed - the e5 splits black's side of the board in half, preventing black from reinforcing his kingside. It's a tricky line to play because there's a lot of room for error but if played effectively it can give white a huge attacking advantage.
White can certainly build up a big attack, as shown in Fischer's games. I'm not sure that it's accurate to call the KIA "passive," but White's attack builds up more slowly than in some other lines. Krakatoa 04:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] White's plan?
The article says "White's plan is usually to either push the d and e pawns up a rank as the game progresses in order to bind the opponent." (emphasis added) Is White's plan to push the d pawn or the e pawn, or is one plan to pudh the d and e pawns, and there is another plan not mentioned? (I've never played this so I don't know.) Bubba73 (talk), 04:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a KIA player either. Since Black can set up his pawns and pieces many different ways, White's available plans vary a great deal according to what Black does. If Black plays a French setup, White often plays e5 followed by d4 and ultimately a king-side attack (as in Fischer-Miagmasuren). Obviously if Black has a pawn on e5 that's not an option, and White will usually move his N/f3 somewhere (h4, e1) then play f4, and possibly later f5, g4, etc. with a king-side attack (as Black commonly does in a regular King's Indian Defense). But if Black played a Saemisch-type setup and 0-0-0, White could end up attacking on the queen-side. See Bagirov-Gufeld, given at the end of the "King's Indian Defense" article. Krakatoa 06:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- My point is that the article says that the plan is either to push the d and e pawns. Should that be d or e, or is pushing the pawns one plan of the "either"? Bubba73 (talk), 14:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is it really passive?.
Against e5 yes it seems to be a bit passive.At least not active as say for ruy lopez,However against others very solid and with active play white can get a good advantages.I have been playing KIA for the last 2 years.I found it very solid and simple to remember the opening.Especially for a short timed games it is a good advantage.If fisher and botvinnik played KIA there must be something on it.Also shall we call; KIA is one of the most solid openings or KIA is considered as a solid opening?.I would like to see comments on this matter from experienced players please. march 2007.
[edit] KIA too technical
Ok, so this is a chess opening. What more can you tell me about it than strategy that is unfathomably to me? What about the origins of the name? Who else uses it? Did Bobby Fischer's use of it have any kind of impact on the chess playing world? Just an article on strategy may be many things, but it does reduce the value of this article. Mister.Manticore 05:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
