Talk:King's Indian Attack
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale. |
 |
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. |
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 —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
It's passive in that White's general set-up cannot be avoided by Black. Of course, the as the entry points out, middle-games are often quite violent given the asymmetry and spatial differences. KAB, 14 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.238.145 (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2008 (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)
This is what the article says: "White's most common plan involves a central pawn push, e4-e5, leading to a central bind, kingside space, and concrete attacking chances on a kingside-castled black king. Black's resources – more queenside space for example – are not to be underestimated. In fact, this asymmetry often leads to violent middlegames and neatly constructed mating nets involving the sacrifice of multiple pieces." This is the most common plan-the E4-E5 push. Alternately, one can play C4, giving the game more of an English or Benoni flavour. The latter is quite sharp and generally outside the ability of club level players. KAB, 14 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.238.145 (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2008 (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.
Yes. It is passive in that Black cannot prevent White from achieving the basic set-up. An opening can be both solid and passive. Notice that Botvinnik and Fischer used it against weak opponents whom they were certain they could outplay in the early middle-game. The chief advantage of the KIA is its simplicity and the avoidance of reams of theory, as well as the ability to steer the opening toward a middle-game where White has more space, more familiarity with the positions and tactics, and a board in which material has yet to be exchanged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.238.145 (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[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. FrozenPurpleCube 05:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References
Not that this should be some sort of standard, but it seems strange to me that there are more references than sentences. Those are probably all good sources for learning about the opening, but were they all used for this article? It's very possible that they were... just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.216.148 (talk • contribs)
- Maybe most of them should be in a "Further Reading" section, but I didn't make the list so I don't know. Bubba73 (talk), 03:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Was about to make the same comment, more references then article content! ChessCreator (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I thought I'd ask the one that added the references if a couple could be used as references and the rest moved to Further reading. But the references were added in the Fall of 2005 and Winter of 2006 by several different IP addresses - likely the same person with different IP addresses. Bubba73 (talk), 16:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
-
I think the most of reference were added by myself with the idea to have all possible references that we can have. For special chess themes this could be a good strategy I think, but it is also ok to divide it in "important" or "with good overview" and the other to "further". —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucySky00 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- A reference is a source for information specifically used in the article. Other sources of information on the topic that are not directly used in the article should be listed under "Further reading" or perhaps "bibliography". Can you clear it up as to which ones were specific sources of the material in the article? Bubba73 (talk), 17:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Extra tempo v's Pawn structure
"The KIA is a mirror image of the setup adopted by Black in the King's Indian Defense. Yet, because of White's extra tempo, the nature of the subsequent play is often different from that of a typical King's Indian Defence." This is POV but I believe the above is incorrect, the reason subsequent play is often different is because of the pawn structure adopted by Black is unlikely to be those adopted by White playing against the KID. ChessCreator (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The original article I wrote referenced the different strategies and concomitant pawn structures given the extra tempo. The point is that in a standard KID giving Black an extra tempo would be devastating for White. This isn't POV. It is truth. KAB, 2607 ELO, 14 May 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.238.145 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 1.Nf3
Links on wiki refer to 1. Nf3 as the Reti opening(which is somewhat misleading). The Reti opening says it's also called 'King's Indian Attack'(which is also misleading). Seems the idea of what 1. Nf3 is to be called wants sorting out. It would be worth checking what 'The Oxford Companion to Chess' says although I suspect it will sidestep the question of what to call 1. Nf3. SunCreator (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
NF3--It's fluid. Hence 1. NF3 can end up being a KIA, a Queen's Pawn game, the Reti, the Nimzo Larsen, or any other closed opening. You can't "sort out" what it is until the game progresses. KAB, 14 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.238.145 (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
