English Chess Forum

In the introduction to his book "Starting Out: Kings Indian Attack" John Emms states "...I played nothing else with the white pieces...White can play the same system of development against virtually any black set-up." Yet, reading further into the book, it becomes apparent it is most effective against the French, Sicilian and Caro-kann(?) and the general concensus of opinion from other sources seems to suggest this "universal" opening may not be entirely suitable to be played against every single black reply. I thought I knew some of the fundamentals of the KIA but have come adrift when trying to implement it. So, how can it be stated that in effect it could be the only opening that white really needs to learn? Are there any other white (or black?) openings where similar principles could perhaps be applied, (as a relative beginner, I can only think that the London System/Torre Attack might be similar)?

Peter Webber wrote: Are there any other white (or black?) openings where similar principles could perhaps be applied, (as a relative beginner, I can only think that the London System/Torre Attack might be similar)?

In almost every opening, there are normal pawn structures and squares that pieces will develop to. For example in many lines of the Queen's Gambit Declined, you might expect to see White pawns on c4, d4 and e3, Knights on c3 and f3, Bishops on g5 and d3, The Queen on c2 and the Queen-side rook on c1 along with King-side castling. As always the opponent will try to disrupt this and set up his own defensive formation.

If you are still struggling, you could post a game or two so we can see your style of play and where you might be going wrong.

Every opening has its draw backs, but more so with ‘System’ type setups - you will hit a brick wall against people graded 130+ and more main line stuff will need to be learned, if you want to improve.

I personally have played the Colle-Zukatort exclusively for 3 years, and have moved up a section in tournaments as a result, however, I am now gritting my teeth and slowly working through a ton of material on the Queens Gambit, because I have found everyone is playing the irritating line 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5 - which transposes into an inferior line of the Slav after 4.c4 followed usually by Qb3 - on the rare occasions somebody went into this in the U125’s section I was used to my opponent falling into some tactic and dropping a pawn as a result, but against 140/50’s I’ve found myself in a passive position with ineffective Bishops, which has been enough for Black to eventually grind down.

I would say though, if you are a beginner, and presumably your average opponent is no more than the 100 grade area or lower, stick with your KIA and maybe get another book which expands on it a little more - the Starting Out series are good, but Designed as an overview of the Opening. I seem to remember the Fritz DVD by Nigel Davies on the KIA was pretty in-depth.

Maybe be prepared to be flexible with the opening and go 'out of system' if your opponent goes into something you feel the KIA is weak against. Though personally when I was a French player, I used to hate it more than the exchange variation.

As Roger says, post some of your games, the reason you are losing is more than likely something you are doing after the opening.

Jon Mahony wrote:I have found everyone is playing the irritating line 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5 -

That is the old book line against the Colle . Openings books, Batsford Chess Openings 1 in particular, were apt to give that and nothing else. Other ideas are possible. 3 .. g6 aiming for a Gruenfeld is one idea, also available are 3 . .. c5 and 3 . .. Bg4 aiming to have the initiative side of a Queens Gambit Declined. If met with 4. c4 then having played .. c5 enables transpositions into a wide range of IQP style positions.

The old idea against 3. .. Bf5 was to play 4. Bd3 and then Alekhine recommended 4. .. e6 as totally defusing the Colle.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Jon Mahony wrote:I have found everyone is playing the irritating line 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5 -

That is the old book line against the Colle . Openings books, Batsford Chess Openings 1 in particular, were apt to give that and nothing else. Other ideas are possible. 3 .. g6 aiming for a Gruenfeld is one idea, also available are 3 . .. c5 and 3 . .. Bg4 aiming to have the initiative side of a Queens Gambit Declined. If met with 4. c4 then having played .. c5 enables transpositions into a wide range of IQP style positions.

The old idea against 3. .. Bf5 was to play 4. Bd3 and then Alekhine recommended 4. .. e6 as totally defusing the Colle.

Yeah there are a number of irritating side lines for black, however I've found 3...Bf5 the worst.

The sneaky Gruenfeld with 3...g6 is another one I give a little internal sigh to, but I always find I can get a playable game against that if I just change plans a little bit and play a set up with c3 and either play for e4 or attack on the Queenside - it's slow but seems okay. I've had a lot of practice with that one as a lot of lower graded players think the game is won, once white has committed to e3 without releasing the dark squared Bishop, and they then fianchetto theirs.

I've only had one OTB game with 3...c5 which I did indeed meet with 4.c4 as per Summerscale's recommendation and it in fact transposed into a line of the C-Z, but I have played the IQP positions a fair bit online with mostly draws.

3...Bg4 I've always been quite happy to play against, as it seems to give a version of the Bf5 stuff, where white has time to create some early problems for black. For instance after 4.c4 e6 5.Qb3 black may be tempted to go Bxf3, when he does hang the b7 pawn and seed the Bishop pair. Possible also is 5...Qc8 when 6.Ne5 seems very nice, gaining a tempo on the Bishop and in turn creating meaningful checking threats on b5 after cxd. Never lost in that line and it was popular in the minor.

Its 3...Bf5 that is my main reason for abandonment - The Summerscale idea of 4.c4 and 5.Qb3 to attack the undefended b7 pawn falls short in my experience - black has enough time to get ready with c6 and Qc7 - Ne5 is no longer great as the Bishop on f5 isn't attacked.

Summerscale recommends a plan of exchanging on d5, playing Bd2 and Rc1 then some tactics on the c-file, but this seems to be an illusion in my eyes, and with best play black has always ended up better in my games.

There is the Davies idea of an early Nh4 chasing the Bishop on f5 which I have tried a few times, but I don't feel the Bishop pair is worth the opening of the h-file so early, especially as white still has a very crummy Bishop on c1 - castling Kingside looks suicide here. Still it is preferable to the Summerscale idea and may be best.

I would agree with the great Alekhine on 4.Bd3 - seems just to leave white passive with a very bad Bishop.

Hey-ho on with the Queens gambit - a well known and slightly tipsy GM, warned me in a pub, during a congress a few years ago, that I would eventually run into trouble with the Colle - thought I knew better!

Is that 4 c4 c6? That's very much a main line of the Slav nowadays of course and can be played quite ambitiously by white.
(See the Topalov - Kramnik WC match for example.).

Certainly no reason to be put off something if that's the worst you think you're getting. The Colle is very self limiting in terms of position types of course so well worth switching to the QGD.

MartinCarpenter wrote:Is that 4 c4 c6? That's very much a main line of the Slav nowadays of course and can be played quite ambitiously by white.

It's a problem for an author, if when writing a book about less common variations, that the objectively best moves are to transpose back into a mainstream system. It doesn't have to be a problem for a player though.