Why do people say that the Bayonet attack (early b4) is so strong
against King's Indian Defense:

1. d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5
Ne7 9.b4

White is just attacking on the queenside and all he is getting is
material. But Black is counterattacking on the kingside and aiming at
the white's king's throat!!!

So why is it so hard for black to play against this line?

Ivan wrote:

Why do people say that the Bayonet attack (early b4) is so strong
against King's Indian Defense:

1. d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5
Ne7 9.b4

White is just attacking on the queenside and all he is getting is
material. But Black is counterattacking on the kingside and aiming at
the white's king's throat!!!

So why is it so hard for black to play against this line?



Black is going over c5 and d6. If Black fail to get into White's castle,
he will have problems

And black has to make some arrangements in his pieces in order to... and
that consume time... which White usually use in going over c5, d6 and
even c7

after center closing, that is one of the most fighting variation in
chess openings

best regards
Luis

"Ivan" wrote in message
om...

Why do people say that the Bayonet attack (early b4) is so strong
against King's Indian Defense:

1. d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5
Ne7 9.b4

White is just attacking on the queenside and all he is getting is
material. But Black is counterattacking on the kingside and aiming at
the white's king's throat!!!

So why is it so hard for black to play against this line?

Because white usually is better versed on the theory than black. The biggest
problem with the KID is all the theory you have to know. White just needs
his own pet line. Curious, in a tournament in January I played the Bayonet
three times losing twice as white and winning once as black.

StanB

Because white usually is better versed on the theory than black. The biggest
problem with the KID is all the theory you have to know. White just needs
his own pet line. Curious, in a tournament in January I played the Bayonet
three times losing twice as white and winning once as black.

StanB

Most likely because everyone is booked up on it as black. However if
you just switch to another line you'll probably end up with good
results. I think the KID is just not good to have as a number one
defense because you have to devote too much time to it. Fischer even
realized that then Kasparov eventually.

EZoto

(Ivan) wrote in message . com...
Why do people say that the Bayonet attack (early b4) is so strong
against King's Indian Defense:

1. d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5
Ne7 9.b4

White is just attacking on the queenside and all he is getting is
material. But Black is counterattacking on the kingside and aiming at
the white's king's throat!!!

So why is it so hard for black to play against this line?

well the thing is that whites attack is somewhat faster.

it seems to me that the bayonnette attack has killed the traditional
kingside attack by black. Black simply doesn't have the time to go
for the
kingside attack aiming for mating white's king. That is NOT to say
the white
is necessarily superior in this variation ; black does have adequate
resources...all I am saying is, it takes the fun out of KID as black
cannot play the kingside attack. Does anybody disagree ?
I agree that KID requires too much studying...because after each
move at the beginning stage, there are so many different options for
Black as well as White.
If you are aiming for a particular formation (as black or as white)
there is no guarantee that you will get it, because there are so many
ways your opponent can
deviate. for instance, if you are White player who loves the
bayonnette, you
might not get it to play it, because black can capture your d4 with
his e5 at
an earlier stage, or go for the c6 or c5 lines...etc etc...
Comments ?
Somebody said that Fischer and Kasparov realised the demerits of KID
and switched to other openings. What did they play at the later stages
of their career ? Did they completely give up the KID ? I doubt that.
And finally, who 'invented' the KID ? I know that David Bronstein
was one of the 2..who was the other ? Were they 'inventors' or
'popularisers' of the KID ?
Samik


(Underground) wrote in message . com...
(Ivan) wrote in message . com...
Why do people say that the Bayonet attack (early b4) is so strong
against King's Indian Defense:

1. d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5
Ne7 9.b4

White is just attacking on the queenside and all he is getting is
material. But Black is counterattacking on the kingside and aiming at
the white's king's throat!!!

So why is it so hard for black to play against this line?

well the thing is that whites attack is somewhat faster.

On 1 Jun 2004 12:30:16 -0700, (Samik) wrote:

SNIP
....

Somebody said that Fischer and Kasparov realised the demerits of KID
and switched to other openings. What did they play at the later stages
of their career ? Did they completely give up the KID ? I doubt that.
And finally, who 'invented' the KID ? I know that David Bronstein
was one of the 2..who was the other ? Were they 'inventors' or
'popularisers' of the KID ?
Samik


Fischer did not so much give up KID as expand his repertoire. When
Fischer was participating in the world championship cycle in 1958-1960
and 1961-1963 he played the KID (in fact a very narrow range of
variations of KID) almost exclusively in answer to 1.d4. By the time
played in the 1970-1972 championship cycle he had added the Benoni,
Nimzoindian, QGD Tarrasch var., and the Gruenfeld. In the 1992 match
with Spassky he also threw in the QGA.

Kaspraov's repertoire development was similar. Very early in his
career he played KID predominately. Then for a time (1982-1984) he
added the Benoni and the QGD Tarrasch var. Later on he added the
Grunfeld, Nimzoindian, Queen's Indian, QGA, and some variations of the
the Slav. Unlike Fischer, who continued to play the KID in his last
games, Kasparov seems to have given it up completely. The last game I
could find where he played was the loss to Ivanchuk at Linares 1997.

The earliest game I could find with KID was Schwarz-Paulsen Liepzig,
1879. David Bronstein and Isaak Boleslavsky are largely credited with
rejuvenating the defense in the late 1940's through the 1950's