|Aug-18-03|| ||refutor: theoryphiles and dragoners lend me your ears...is 9. ... d5 too ambitious? i'm sure it's all theory and can't be immediately losing since topalov played it v. the world champ but it just doesn't seem right to me ;) that won't stop me from trying it in blitz |
|Aug-18-03|| ||actual: 9...d5!? is a logical choice against White's choice of 9. O-O-O instead of 9. c4 which controls the d5 square. I don't know if it's considered too ambitious or not. Yes, it is all theory. GM Ward approached it in Winning With The Dragon, but in WWTD2 (which I have) he recommends 9...d7 and 9...xd4 10. xd4 e6 because the ideas of the 9...d5!? are well established |
|Aug-28-03|| ||SicilianDragon: 9...d5 is fine and many consider it to be the ONLY testing reply against 9. 0-0-0 (I strongly disagree). 12...Nxc3 looks bad, 12...e5 is main line. |
|Aug-28-03|| ||seoulmama: Refutor, 9... d5 is certainly not too ambitious; Topalov played wrongly by moving the pawn to c3. |
|Aug-28-03|| ||seoulmama: SicilianDragon, 12... Nxc3 is not bad. Topalov merely played it badly. |
|Aug-28-03|| ||SicilianDragon: Perhaps not bad in the sense of being a "losing" move, but it practically forces a trade of dark-squared bishops which is NOT what black wants to do in the Dragon. |
|Aug-28-03|| ||NiceMove: Amazing, double iso pawns won the game.
seems black should not have been so greedy on the king side.
|Aug-28-03|| ||SicilianDragon: The threat of 43. Kd6 is killer. Threatening mate and the pawn. |
|Feb-13-05|| ||Nick16: I am surprised the aggresive Kasparov did not play his normal 9.h4 immediately starting his king-side attack. |
|Jul-12-05|| ||davewv: This game is on page 128 of "Secrets of the Sicilian Dragon" by Schiller and Gufeld, under the Heading : Dragon Endgames|
|Dec-24-06|| ||Shajmaty: <Nick16: I am surprised the aggresive Kasparov did not play his normal 9.h4 immediately starting his king-side attack.> 9. h4 "normal"? Only after 9. Bc4 (main alternative to 9. 0-0-0) White is able to play h4.|
|May-08-08|| ||Cactus: <SicilianDragon> Actually, ...Nxc3 is <not> at all a bad move. In one of my Dragon books its said to be as good as ...e5 (though not as popular), and its my main responce against 9.0-0-0.
However, the advance 18...c5 is a mistake. Instead, Kasparov said that 18...Qf2! would have led to only a very slight advantage for white, as it did in Peredy-Czebe, Balatonbereny 1997.|
|Jan-31-10|| ||VaselineTopLove: Was this played before or after GK's match with Anand?|
|Apr-05-14|| ||tranquilsimplicity: <refutor>
No. 9...d5 is not too ambitious; it is very sound and equalises immediately. However I no longer analyse games with software therefore cannot suggest what went wrong for black. Nevertheless, ..d5 in that position is perfectly sound and in fact the best move. I give my answer as a Dragoneer.#
|Sep-20-14|| ||Conrad93: 9...d5 is a book move. You act as if Topalov pulled out some kind of novelty. Hilarious.|
Vigorito devotes a whole chapter to it.
|Sep-20-14|| ||Conrad93: In fact, the 9...d5 line is supposed to be drawish, since it usually leads to an early trade of queens.|
|Sep-21-14|| ||perfidious: Well, not all of us can be great players the way <donkrad> is.|
|Oct-01-14|| ||Conrad93: Are you going to do that every time I make a comment?|
|Oct-01-14|| ||john barleycorn: 9....d5 was the reason why 9.Bc4 was preferred to 0-0-0. It was disputed as Black has to give the exchange for unclear consequences.|
12...Nxc3 has 3 predecessors in the CG database:
G Timoshenko vs A Deszczynski, 1992
I Gurevich vs Petursson, 1992
Topalov vs Kiril Georgiev, 1994