Talk:King's Indian Attack

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)
• The main reason is that in the French defense, the c8-bishop will be an issue for Black. It cannot be developed at f5 or g4 as in other defenses, and the development at b7 or a6 is more passive. Time Dilation (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• It's supposed to be good against systems where Black plays ...e6, as the best defense seems to be one including e7-e5, clamping down on the d4 square. This is why Fischer liked d3 against (and only against!) Sicilians where Black played 2...e6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessmasterguy (talk • contribs) 23:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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?

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)

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)

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)

The biggest problem with the article is that it gives lines starting 1. Nf3 d5 as the main lines, but these days the KIA is most often played by 1. e4 players who want to avoid the over-analysed liens of the Sicilian and French defences. In those lines, and especially the Sicilian lines, Black often plays his d-pawn to d6. The e pawn can then stay where it is in a Dragon-like set-up, or play to e6 to support a later d5, or go to e5 to gain space and solidify the K-side. This way of starting leads to very different strategies than the Barcza system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.93.104 (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

It's not strictly correct to say that Fischer "used this opening". He had a handful of games with it during his teens, but after it became clear that it was not ambitious enough as an opening he abandoned it completely. I would even go as far to say that it's a little demeaning to Fischer's stature and reputation to say that it was used "most famously" by him, when in reality it is only a club-level opening at best. If you go to chessgames.com and look at Fischer's profile it is not even mentioned in his "most used openings" entry (which is Ruy Lopez and other various setups by black against his routinely played 1.e4. Even against The French Defence, where the King's Indian Attack has the best chance of success, he only played it 4 times in his entire career, preferring the mainline 2.d4 (as opposed to 2.d3 as in the King's Indian Attack) which he played 67 times. A ratio of approximately 16:1. I think the reason it is associated with him is his famous win against Myagmarsuren, but this is one of the 4 times he used it out of 71 games vs. the French Defence. In truth he has some far more brilliant games against the mainline French, such as his dismantling of the Winawer against Bent Larsen in the 1971 Candidate's Tournament. So, to summarise: this really should be changed. It's nice to have the big name association with an opening but in this case it is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.227.172 (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

Ignore this guy. He is now gone. Bubba73 (talk), 03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Well, I took a few of the more recent and more accessible ones in English and left them as references and moved the rest to Further Reading. Make changes if you think it should be different. Bubba73 (talk), 16:44, 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)

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)

Yes, what you're saying is true, but it is the extra tempo white has that results in the different pawn structure in comparison to the KID. So the article isn't really wrong. By the way, on a general note, why is this opening listed as a favourite of Bobby Fischer's? On chessgames.com he has only two games with this opening. Admittedly, one of them is a brilliant one, but still, it was by no means one of his favourites, he was much more inclined to the ruy lopez etc ... I think that statement should be taken out of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.170.246 (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

King's Indian Attack vs Barcza System

The article suggests at various points that the King's Indian Attack and the Barcza System are interchangable names for the same opening.

However, I'd suggest that that is not the case and that reference to (say) Hooper & Whyld, or to any of the many books on the King's Indian Attack, would suggest that the term KIA refers specifically to the plan of Nf3/g3/Bg2/d3/Nbd2/e4 (sometimes achieved via e4/d3/Nbd2/etc), whereas the term Barcza System refers only to 1.Nf3 2.g3 (and usually 3.Bg2 4.0-0) after which any number of different systems might be played, only one of which is the King's Indian Attack.

For example, in the section in this article titled 'Uses', it states that the KIA can transpose to the Reti, Catalan, English or Nimzo-Larsen, but that is really only true of the Barcza System (the original purpose of which was that it was a transpositional tool, giving White the choice between those various options depending on Black's set-up ).

Similarly the lead para says 'The KIA, or Barcza System...' and then immediately afterwards defines the full compliment of characteristic moves of the King's Indian Attack, and not just the characteristic moves of the Barcza System.

Also, the section here on 'Barcza System' is simply a collection of very short lines going no further than move 3. It would be far better, I suspect, if this was removed and (as I recently suggested on the London System page) replaced with a series of descriptions of possible set-ups by Black when facing the KIA - thus extending the analysis at least out towards moves 5, 6 or 7.

I'd suggest that the main variations of the King's Indian Attack (following the treatment usually given in the various books about the opening) are as follows:

vs either the 1.e4 or 1.Nf3 move orders

Franco-Sicilian: Black plays e6/c5/d5 and various constellations of minor pieces (but the Bc8 remains inside the pawn chain).

Other Sicilian systems: Black plays c5/d6 and various constellations of minor pieces.

Caro-Kann: c6/d5 and usually e5.

vs the 1.Nf3 move order

Reversed King's Indian Defence: d5/c5/e5/Nc6/Nf6 and various options for the bishops (including Bg7).

Reversed London System: d5/Bf5/Nf6/e6 etc.

Keres System: d5/Bg4/etc (basically a reversed Torre Attack).

I'd also suggest that in the section comparing the KIA to the KID ('Characteristics') it's probably worth noting that the KIA is typically played against set-ups by Black that involve ...e6. The comparable set-ups by White vs the KID (i.e. involving e3) aren't considered to be theoretically important, so in most lines of the KIA White is effectively a move up in a line already considered suboptimal for the opponent. That doesn't mean that White already has a significant advantage, but it is essentially the argument for the use of the KIA (going back to the 1950's when it first became common, as an offshoot of the widespread use of the KID).

Any thoughts on any of the above? Axad12 (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've rewritten most of the article, primarily along the lines envisaged in the previous note. The major changes are:

Removal of references to the Barcza System.

Addition of some historical context.

Addition of names of prominent practitioners.

Addition of some (fairly brief) comments on White's characteristic plan of attack.

Addition of various typical lines, some showing transpositional possibilities between 1.e4 and 1.Nf3 move orders, and some showing lines that can only arise via 1.Nf3.

If these changes meet with general approval I will add further references, text links, etc. (Or if anyone else fancies doing that then please go ahead).

The previous article was quite superficial, so hopefully these will be seen as positive steps.

Any comments pro or con welcomed. Axad12 (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Axad12: why remove refereces to Barcza Opening? Mateussf (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, as per the note above titled 'King's Indian Attack vs Barcza System', these are two different things. Thus, since this article is about the King's Indian Attack, no reference to the Barzca System is necessary. Hopefully this clarifies. Axad12 (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Barcza System now has its own page and no longer re-directs here. Also, a quote from Yasser Seirawan is included in the references on that page to demonstrate that the Barzca System and King's Indian Attack are different openings. 'Barcza Opening' now re-directs to 'Barcza System'. Axad12 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer and the King's Indian Attack

If there’s one player who is regularly mentioned as a practitioner of the KIA then it’s Bobby Fischer (for proof of which refer to the back of any book or dvd on the KIA, or to any YouTube video about this opening.).

However, back in 2014, commenting on a previous version of the page here on the KIA, user 86.41.227.172 objected to this association, saying:

“It's not strictly correct to say that Fischer ‘used this opening’. He had a handful of games with it during his teens, but after it became clear that it was not ambitious enough as an opening he abandoned it completely. I would even go as far to say that it's a little demeaning to Fischer's stature and reputation to say that it was used ‘most famously’ by him, when in reality it is only a club-level opening at best.” Also “The association [between Fischer and the KIA] really should be changed [on the Wikipedia page]. It's nice to have the big-name association with an opening but in this case it is inappropriate”.

Since this comment went uncorrected at the time, I felt it might be useful to revisit the issue.

Reference to ‘Bobby Fischer: Complete Games’ (Karsten Muller, 2009) reveals the following details…

For the purposes of clarity, all references to the KIA here relate to games involving e4/d3/g3/Nf3 etc by whatever move order. (Actually, I think there may be one instance where Fischer plays the KIA vs the Caro-Kann where he omits g3).

Fischer played the KIA in 17 tournament or match games between 1956 and 1958 (Fischer was approx 13-15 years old during this period). The games usually start 1.Nf3. The tournaments include some of the strongest in the US at the time (US Open, US Championship, Rosenwald Trophy) and other regional tournaments with master level participation (e.g. New Western Open, New Jersey Open, etc.). This was, of course, the period when Fischer improved rapidly and it culminated in his first US championship title (the 1957/8 tournament, where he used the KIA in 2 of his 7 games as White). It’s fair to say that, by and large, Fischer was using the KIA vs the lesser lights in these tournaments. (When playing higher calibre opponents such as Reshevsky, Saidy and Bisguier, Fischer used the Open Sicilian and the French with 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3.)

The table of Fischer’s results on p.399 of Muller suggests that Fischer played c.128 tournament/match games during this period, so probably around 64 games as White. For 17 of these c.64 games to have been KIA’s is clearly a significant percentage. An impression of the importance of the KIA to Fischer’s early repertoire can be gained from Fischer’s comment in game 1 of ‘My 60 Memorable Games’ (Fischer vs Sherwin, 1957) where he says of the KIA ‘This used to be my favourite’.

There is then a break of circa 8 years when Fischer only plays the occasional KIA in simuls (irrelevant for our purposes) before returning to the KIA on 11 occasions between 1966 and 1970, including at the Manila and Siegen Olympiads, at the Interzonals at Sousse and Palma de Mallorca, and at very strong tournaments such as the Piatigorsky Cup, Rovinj/Zagreb 1970 and Buenos Aires 1970. Five of these 11 games were Caro-Kanns, which the Russians were playing vs Fischer with some regularity at this time as it seems they considered it to be his Achilles heel. It is still true that Fischer was using the KIA mainly vs lesser lights during this period, but the opponents do also include players of the calibre of Ivkov, Hubner and Hort.

After 1970, Fischer’s career consists of the series of candidates matches and the World Championship match vs Spassky. In these matches he didn't use the KIA (which is unsurprising, given his very strong preference for playing Open Sicilians vs high level opposition).

Based on all of the above, I’d suggest that this record doesn’t represent ‘a handful of games […] during his teens’ before ‘he abandoned it completely’. In addition, it is clearly untrue that Fischer considered the KIA to be ‘a club-level opening at best’ or that he would have considered any association with it to be ‘demeaning to his stature and reputation’. The association between Fischer and the KIA seems fairly strong, in terms of it being a reliable workhorse that he used through much of his career, via 1.Nf3 in the early years and 1.e4 in his later career, and against a variety of Black responses and in a variety of tournament situations.

User 86.41.227.172 also states that the KIA "is not even mentioned in [Fischer's] 'Most Used Openings' entry" in his profile on Chessgames.com. The reason for that is because the info box on Chessgames.com only includes the names of openings ('Sicilian', 'French', 'Caro-Kann', etc) rather than the names of subvariations - although even it did go down to subvariation level the KIA would still probably lose out due to the various different transpositional routes through which it can arise.

The 28 Fischer games in the KIA compare rather well to other openings that are (rightly or wrongly) associated with Fischer, e.g. the Two Knights Caro-Kann (15 games in Muller), the Exchange Ruy Lopez (11 games on chesstempo.com, out of c.90 occasions when Fischer faced 3…a6), and the Fischer-Sozin Attack vs the Najdorf (his preferred response to the Najdorf, but still only about 20 games in all). If we compare these figures to an opening very closely associated with Fischer, the Najdorf Sicilian as Black, Fischer played the Najdorf in about 64 games across his tournament/match career according to Muller (the figure is rather higher if you include simuls etc).

Hopefully this note puts to bed any doubts on whether the association between Fischer and the KIA is valid. Axad12 (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Barcza Opening

Barcza Opening redirects here, but the article does not mention this name. Is it a synonym? A variant? It should be specified. Mateussf (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

As per previous notes, the KIA and Barcza System are two different things. The Barcza System should not be redirecting to this page. Axad12 (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I have now removed the re-directs from Barcza Opening and Barcza System to this page. Axad12 (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I've replaced the re-direct on the 'Barcza System' page with some explanatory text about the Barcza System. To be honest I'm not sure that there is very much to say about it, as it's really just a transpositional technique to reach a Reti, KIA, Hippo or Catalan. As far as I can see, Barcza usually employed it to reach what what now be considered a Reti. However, as per previous notes, the Barcza System is not the same as the King's Indian Attack and the re-direct was clearly in error. Axad12 (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)