The 9...a5 Move and the Escape Route from the Opening-Theory Treadmill

In my spreadsheet there is a column I have never shown anyone. It records how many times the move 9.b4 — the Bayonet Attack — appeared in top-level games that I entered by hand starting in 2026. In 2026 the whole year produced seven games. By 2026 the tally passed sixty. I sat down, cross-referenced the games of Kramnik and Kasparov, and understood something no newspaper had written: the King's Indian Defence was being attacked on the queenside, by a move everyone knew and almost nobody bothered to analyse to the end.

Everything on the board is data waiting for a reader — if you are willing to sit down.

So when a new opening DVD appeared, proposing 9...a5 as the answer to the Bayonet, I did not treat it as news. I treated it as a market signal.

Mar del Plata, where the centre is locked

The Classical System of the King's Indian Defence (E97/E99) runs on a logic rare in modern chess: both sides lock the centre shut, then turn to attack opposite wings. White pushes c5 and b4 on the queenside; Black pushes f5 and g5 on the kingside. The centre is no longer where the game is decided; it is merely the wall separating two wars.

The move 9.b4 was born from exactly that idea. It seizes queenside space and simultaneously disrupts Black's standard plan. After 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, the move 9.b4 forces Black to answer immediately on a stage he has not yet finished building.

The orthodox reply for over two decades has been 9...Nh5 — Kasparov's move, the move of the games that made this variation famous. But 9...Nh5 carries a fatal weakness in the computer era: it has been analysed to exhaustion. Every branch has been dug fifteen, twenty moves deep. Games there have become a contest between data engineers, no longer a game between players.

What 9...a5 actually sells the buyer

The DVD proposes 9...a5. The move has sat in databases for a long time; the only thing that makes it worth discussing is that it has drifted out of fashion. Its value lies somewhere else entirely.

After 9...a5, the structure shifts into a purely strategic position with very few forced lines. Black does not need to memorise thirty moves of theory; Black needs to understand the position. That is an appealing promise, and technically it holds up.

Based on my own experience following these games, I re-checked it against my old spreadsheet. The move 9...a5 does not make White weaker. It only makes the game less sharp. White keeps queenside space, keeps the c5 plan, keeps the improving moves. 9...Nh5 is a challenge; 9...a5 is a negotiation. You do not gain an advantage from this move. You purchase peace of mind.

An opening DVD is where people pay for reassurance and then blame their opponent.

The promotional article itself admits this, unintentionally. The author writes that in the 9...Nh5 branch the lines become forced and computer analysis becomes important again. Translated plainly: this product is valuable on the condition that you avoid the main line. A self-limiting sales pitch.

Where I had to stop and read twice

One sentence in the article made me underline it: computers often do not know how to handle the resulting complex strategic positions.

That sentence was true in the 2010s. It is wrong in 2026.

New-generation neural-network engines evaluate the closed, manoeuvring positions of the King's Indian Defence far better than the previous generation did. What computers remain weak at is long-horizon judgement — accepting a little less space today in exchange for a better position twenty moves later. But that weakness is a different thing from not knowing how to handle the position.

Here I see a familiar pattern: the weakest piece of evidence is propping up the strongest marketing claim. Not one illustrative game. Not one database frequency. Not one engine evaluation. Just a bare assertion.

The article also exposes an unresolved tension. One passage says the product suits players who want to think for themselves instead of memorising. Another says 9...a5 has very few concrete lines. Those two things target two different buyer profiles: the independent thinker and the busy player. The article merges them into one, and the merge is not honest about the market.

The final point, and the one least noticed. The author's own verdict is that objectively the chances are equal. That is an honest admission, but it sits far from the way the piece advertises the move as a weapon dangerous for White. If the chances are equal, this is a survival weapon, not a winning one. Buyers deserve to know exactly what they are holding.

The medium is part of the story

There is one detail I want to record, because it is usually ignored when people argue only about moves. This product ships as a DVD — the traditional premium format of opening publishing. Meanwhile the market has migrated to subscription course platforms and streaming-integrated study tools. The content may be sound; the delivery channel is falling behind. A good product on a fading format is still a disadvantaged product.

An asset with diminishing returns

I no longer believe in miracles on the board; I believe only in conversion rates.

But there is something in this story that no number captures. The move 9...a5 has real value, and that value has an expiry date. Every DVD sold exposes the move a little further. The more commercially successful it becomes, the faster it loses its surprise. No marketer prints that on the box.

And this is what I take away after forty-eight years of tracking tournaments. When the opening-preparation treadmill has crushed the main line itself, the market will always generate escape routes. The smart buyer does not ask whether the escape route is strong or weak. The smart buyer asks how long it can stay surprising.