11...Ng4 in the KID
Having played the white side of the mainline KID for a good number of years, I'm aware that Black's ...Ng4 usually gets the standard treatment of Bg5 f6, Bc1/d2, followed by h3 Nh6, and Be3 again. I call this the "Bishop and Knight's Tango" and it is particularly likely to occur in Na6 and Nbd7 systems. White really has no reason to be unhappy there.
But as we say in my mother tongue, "trying new food makes you eat", so I've recently ventured to take up my puppy love again. After all, I'm a countryman of both Colle and Koltanowski :-).
I'd like some advice on how to treat Black's knight lunge in the Zuka KID. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.e3 0-0 5.Be2 d6 6.Nc3 Nbd7 7.0-0 e5 8.Qc2 Re8 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.e4 c6 11.Be3 Ng4, I assume the obvious follow-up would be 12.Bg5 f6 (I'm less concerned with Q-moves or B/Nf6 as they give White a freer hand) 13.Bd2 Nc5 14.h3 Nh6 15.Ra(or f)d1 Nf7 16.Be3 Qe7.
Now it would be White's most natural course of action to follow David's recipe of expanding on the Q-side and vacating the c4 square (and with it the a2-g8 diagonal) by pushing the b- and c-pawns. However I'm irritated with Black's counterchances in the centre. A sample line that's been haunting me for a few days now is 17.b4 Ne6 18.c5 f5. As far as I can see, White is now faced with the choice between exchanging of f5 or not, but neither option seems to inspire much confidence. Not exchanging means allowing ...f5-f4, forcing White's bishop to abandon its guard of d4 (which strikes me as rather crucial).
Flicking in the exchange, though, means allowing e5-e4 which, after 19.exf5 gxf5 20.Bc4 (alas, 20.Qxf5?? fails miserably to 20...e4 21.Nxe4 Nd4! -+, to which my silicone assistant awoke me quite rudely - no pun intended ;-) e4 21.Nd4 Nxd4 22.Bxd4 Be6, leads to a position where the pressure is on White to keep the position unbalanced, since the alternative is suffering in an ending where Black's knight can sit pretty on d3.
I want to believe, though! Please share your thoughts, I will happily accept any and all flaws in my analysis! :-)
Regards,
Raffen