And on topic - I believe that experienced GM ( preferably with lots of XP on both sides of the KID ) armed with strong computer and an hour or two of work on critical positions would give us excellent picture of what happened objectively.

"objectively, for players that always offer and accept draws after one half-move, chess is drawn."

Just to take future world champion Alekhine as an example, he seemed to have instinctively opted to play g3 and fianchetto his king bishop and would exchange his d5 pawn whenever black pushed his e-pawn, thus opening the center. This made it all but impossible for black to do a kingside pawn storm. (Until today the g3 and Bg2 idea is employed by many white players in order to attenuate any potential black pawnstorm.)

Alekhine vs G A Thomas, 1923

Alekhine vs J H Morrison, 1923

Kasparov was the greatest KID practitioner in the 1980s to 1990s. Here is a typical Kasparov KID win following the model described above.

Ljubojevic vs Kasparov, 1993

Kasparov quit the KID after Kramnik administered some beatings to him in this opening. Notice though that in Kramnik's KID victories, he never allows black unimpeded kingside play; instead he partially opened the center and went for strong central and kingside activity himself.

Kramnik vs Kasparov, 1994

Kramnik vs Kasparov, 1994

Kramnik vs Kasparov, 1997

These are the crucial games that may have caused Kasparov to quit the KID.

Thus you have two world champions, one in the early and the other in the modern era of the KID, both avoiding a totally closed pawn center; and playing for activity in the center and kingside.

Your post is really good!. Can I use it as a basis for a video?! Also note Kramnik even beat KID exponent John Nunn who was deeply theoretical.

I lost two KID's in my recent Classic unfortunately but they were both fun games to a point.

As a consequence of the pain of these couple of losses, I revised my d5 structure plans recently with this video which may be of interest to KID enthusiasts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PORH...

What you say intuitively about the fianchetto vs the Kings Indian is very important - Avrukh took the Fianchetto idea and basically did his opening books out of them, playing the Fianchetto against everything. Avukh's volumes seem to receive a lot of praise and even though I did buy them, I haven't had time to read them.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/1-d4-v-1-Gr...

Funny enough also in my two recent KID losses - the opponent did have a defensive fiancheto bishop. In one game though, there was a side effect of playing f3, that I should have picked up on more to save some valuable tempi. Also if White is using more time for prophylaxis with a fianchettoed bishop, sometimes black has alternative plans like play on the Queenside or even to undermine the center. The fianchetto is after all not looking after the f1-a6 diagonal as much, and therefore there is different potential effectiveness of these plans as well as the more direct K-side attack which is less likely to work.

I think it was Reti who popularized the KID in the 1920s. Reviewing his treatment of the opening, and the reactions of his esteemed opponents, is fascinating, and shows clearly that the pre-WW2 masters were enthusiastically pursuing theoretical opening debates.

Reti's first two KID games in CG database were no less than against Akiba Rubinstein.

Rubinstein vs Reti, 1919

Note that Rubinstein instinctively essays the g3 and Bg2 fianchetto (Rubinstein as you say was fond of the g2 fianchetto), and then exchanges center pawns to open up the d-file. Rubinstein's treatment renders a Kingside pawnstorm impossible, and Reti typically goes for active Queenside play. Rubinstein then was regarded as one of the strongest players in the world, and Reti must have been encouraged with his drawing the game.

Reti's second game with the KID against Rubinstein in 1919 resulted in a loss for him.

Rubinstein vs Reti, 1919

He exchanged his LS bishop for the knight on f3, and tried the f5 push, but Rubinstein typically countered in the center. Nevertheless IMO Reti won the opening battle, winning a pawn. It was Rubinstein's endgame brilliance that overwhelmed him.

Given his generally good result in the opening stage of the game, Reti tries again against Rubinstein.

Rubinstein vs Reti, 1922

Again Rubinstein essays the g2 fianchetto and this time is induced to close the center. Reti then embarks on the f5 pawn push; but we can see here the attenuating effect of the white fianchetto on black's planned kingside attack. Strong Queenside counter-play by white forces black to go for a perpetual.

In the following 1922 games involving Reti, white attempts to counter the black f5 pawn push with g4. Note that Reti himself as white this time played the g2 fianchetto.

Alekhine vs Reti, 1922

Saemisch vs Reti, 1922

Reti vs Yates, 1922

In his next two games, Reti played c5, transposing the game into a Benoni-like structure. He obtained a strong initiative in these games- and probably deemed them an opening success.

Gruenfeld vs Reti, 1923

Marshall vs Reti, 1924

The latter looks distinctively Benko- gambit like.

Reti also tried the KID against the formidable Alekhine in New York 1924,

Alekhine vs Reti, 1924

but Alekhine does the g2 fianchetto and completely opens up the center. This game must have discouraged Reti because he abstained from the KID for two years. By 1926, he must have found improvements and assayed it once again vs Alekhine.

Alekhine vs Reti, 1926

AAA responded again with the g2 Fianchetto, and outplayed Reti in a nice endgame.

Reti then quit playing the KID against top masters. He had waged a theoretical battle against two of the best. First against Rubinstein, although with a losing score, his KID could be deemed an opening success. Second against Alekhine, Reti must have regarded his KID a failure.

Reti did play it against a weaker master, Landau, who used AAA's idea, but Landau was not of AAA's caliber. Reti almost routinely won.

S Landau vs Reti, 1927

Ironically Reti in turn tried Alekhine's idea himself as white against another KID practitioner Yates; and lost:

When WWI broke out many European players (Alekhine, Janowski, Reti,, Vidmar, Bogolyubov, etc.) happened to be in Germany and were detained. They played chess day and night during the war years and mainly studied the Indian Defense now known as the KID which Nimzovich was said to have invented. These players were so successful with the defense after the war that Reti studied it for use with White and came up with the Reti Opening.

Related to Anand's caution OTB it may have been warranted, Nakamura's Kside attack can be quite dangerous.

An lesson example I use is

Its reputation only holds high due to KID players that fail to recognize the strategic drawbacks behind Nakamura's play in the opening, or simply retreat back and claim that this was a masterpiece demonstrating the KID's revival in modern play, which it is most definitely not. Such arguments are based only on bias that defends the KID's status as a good opening for aggressive players, but omit the fact that it is actually unsound.

Even Nakamura himself should have been aware that he was genuinely lost to Anand. Denying that he was "objectively" lost implicitly points out that his play was unsound (even he knew it) and that Anand, with simple correct and logically human play (22.Rxa7 and 29.Bh3 for instance rather than 22.Kh1?! and 29.Nc4??), would have crushed Nakamura. It doesn't even take a computer to point out that Anand clearly had a winning position, and the KID would've been proven unsound yet again, like Korchnoi once said. I don't know what Anand was going through at the time, but there was no excuse for his feeble and hesitant play on the queenside that left all of his pieces loose. Had he been in his prime, such a flawed game would not even result.

While I play at a substantially lower level I have some nice scalps with the KID. If the center remains closed and I can regain a tempo or two with a pawn thrust on the kings side I seldom lose and I'm the one posing problems for my opponent.

No matter KID has a nice win loss percentage for a reason and is dangerous and can be very effective. I also know with an open center my positive results are much less likely confirming exactly what <VBD> says so well here. It is by no means an unsound opening and this game was incredibly complex. Nakamura's sentiments when Daniel King questioned it's soundness were to the effect that for engines that may be true but humans make errors and this type of play gives ample opportunity for them to do so.

Korchnoi lost games against the KID himself so maybe he should have been quiet.