|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-21-03 | | ksadler: I played my first game in this line today as White and I got a draw although should have lost (I was up a rook and a Knight for 4 pawns and he took the perpetual rather than continuing at my king aggressively). Any more tame lines to play against the Dragon than this? I used to be a c3-Sicilian man, but recently decided to step up to the mainline Sicilian. |
 |
| Oct-21-03 | | SicilianDragon: Try 9. O-O-O instead. Despite being a Dragon fanatic, I occasionally prefer White's position after this move. |
|
| Oct-21-03 | | zorro: If u want a quieter life u can try the 6. Be2 lines (although with the dragon it's never gonna be a slav exchange, thanks god). You develop 'normally' with Be2, 0-0, Be3, Nb3, f4. Karpov especially liked Bg5, f4 (I even think it's named after him). |
|
| Oct-21-03 | | Shadout Mapes: 6.f4 (the Levenfish) is a good alternate choice that i use sometimes. |
|
| Jan-20-04 | | Benjamin Lau: A (philosophical?) question: when is something considered a refutation to an opening? |
|
Jan-20-04
 | | Sneaky: When postal players give up the opening. |
|
| Jan-20-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Thanks Sneaky, that's a great definition that seems to work perfectly. |
|
| Jan-21-04 | | SicilianDragon: While players (such as Karpov as mentioned by Zorro) have their own pet lines against the Dragon, if you look at any large-scale database you will find that unless Black falls into a trap early (which most experienced players will never do and almost all books on the Dragon will mention these well-known traps), White score significantly lower in the "Classical" (Be2, O-O, etc.) and Levenfish lines than he does in the Yugoslav. |
|
Jan-21-04
 | | matey: SicilianDragon, I am impressed by your knowledge of this opening and am wondering about your winning percentage with it vs masters and vs non masters. Do you specialize in something vs d4? And if and when you play e4 do you crush the dragon mercilessly when you face it? |
|
| Jan-21-04 | | SicilianDragon: Unfortunately, I have yet to play it against any masters (the ones I have played prefer Nf3, d4, or c4) and I would say that in all my games I have played (online and OTB), my conservative estimate would be about 60-70% with almost no draws. Looking at my games with ECO codes B70-B79 from USChessLive (which is where I play most of my games that are not OTB), I have played 26 games (all except 2 games were against players rated over 1600, highest rated player was 2082) with 16 wins, 7 losses, and 3 draws. If my calculations are correct, that is a score of over 67% which is impressive for any opening with Black! While I don't have any numbers from there for my play against the Dragon, although I have only faced the Dragon a few times in OTB rated play, I believe that there I have scored 100% against it (using the 9. O-O-O Yugoslav Attack). Against 1. d4, I had switched to the Leningrad Dutch (it's amazing how many 1. d4 players don't know the theory) and now am "relearning" the KID which I used to play and now I mostly play the Dutch with the KID used for variety and when I am not feelin 100%. The Dutch requires to much accurate calculation that if I have a headache or other ailment it is almost a certain recipe for disaster to play the Dutch, especially against a higher-rated opponent so I use the somewhat-less-sharp KID. My knowledge of the opening does not solely come from book knowledge. Most of it comes from having included the Dragon in my repertoire for several years and playing it as my only defense against 1. e4. I really do feel that the only way to really "learn" an opening is to learn the theory and play it constantly. |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | zion: Im the same as you siciliandragon....
I love to play the dragon both as white and especially as black. And my main response to 1.d4 is also the dutch. :) |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | zion: another comment about the dragon....
If you are like me and you love playing the dragon as black, then you probably played through dozens and dozens of dragon games to understand the opening better.
Praticing lots of the games which use that opening helps you to get a good "feel" for the opening, and then its not to long till you can play the 'right' moves without doing lots of thinking which the dragon requires. But if you've just recently started playing the dragon then chances are you are going to fall into a trap (theres quite a few of them!). |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | SicilianDragon: What helped a lot was GM Chris Ward's excellent book "Winning with the Sicilian Dragon 2". Not only does it outline common themes (such as the power of the "Dragon bishop" and the thematic exchange sacrifice on c3) but also common traps and tactical tricks that both sides must be aware of in the dragon. The book is based around annotated games rather than memorizing theory and the fact that I picked it up right when I began learning the dragon was of great help. Playing over Dragon games (such as those in WWTSD2) and playing blitz games online with the dragon has also helped a great deal. Indeed, I think the Dragon is one of the few (if not the only) sicilian that is so logically based that black can usually make a good move, sometimes even the best move, with little calculation. I had a really fun game on Sunday when I lined up my queen and rook on the open b-file (after a dubious Nxc6) in the 9. O-O-O Yugoslav and my opponent, having already played a3, decided to play b3 as well and as soon as he played it, it was gobbled up by the bishop on e6. Oh what fun it was!! (that's another thing, I don't think any other sicilian players get to have as much fun in there games). |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | AdrianP: The trouble with a lot of opening books (it sounds like Ward's is not one of them) is that they do not point out enough of the traps and tricks, especially for beginners. This encourages people to learn reams of best play, and then not know how to punish a bad move. More often than not, when a bad move is played by the opponent, the follow-up will be another bad move (or, at least, not the deserved refutation of the bad move). Sometimes I've felt like this, especially when I've played a lot of Blitz. I suggest three remedies (i) scrutinise your own games (even or especially blitz games) - the Fritz analysis function is v. helpful with this; (ii) study miniatures in the openings you play (these will almost by definition be decided by an opening mistake being punished); (iii) get a book like GM Ward's book... |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | Stavrogin: What would you consider the 3 most entertaining and/or beautiful games ever with the Dragon? I realise this is an impossible question, so iI am just looking for impulsive answers.
SicilanDragon: who would you consider the greatest Dragonplayer of all times?
And (lots of questions I know): when Kasparov pulled out the dragon vs Anand, I understand it was something of a small sensation... Did he bring anything to the table concerning the opening? Was it considered daring using it against Anand?
Grateful for answers. |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | SicilianDragon: It's impossible to give absolute favorites as most of my favorites are not on this site. Plaskett-Watson 1983 is definitely one of my personal favorites. In addition, Robertsen-Ward 2002 is also a nice one, as is Visweswaran-Ward 2001 (which is on this site). Players? Definitely William Watson, Jonathan Mestel, Chris Ward, and Tony Miles are my top ones (notice the English majority). With regard to Kasparov's use of the Dragon, it was mainly a surprise weapon (Most people probably expected a Najdorf or Scheveningen) but also is known as the "seal of approval" for the Dragon on the international stage. I don't believe that Kasparov made any profound innovations to opening theory, but he probably knew that there was no way Anand would have prepared for a Dragon and given Garry's infamous opening preparation, you can be sure that he probably had the upper hand (psychologically and positionally) coming out of the opening. |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | BiLL RobeRTiE: I have Golubev's "Easy Guide to the Dragon." It's a good book, although it has little text, so it helps to be familiarized with common themes in the Dragon already. Golubev recommends 9. O-O-O for White and 9. O-O-O d5 and the Soltis Variation for Black, and his presentation certainly makes a convincing case! I think that Ward's collection of annotated games and Golubev's comprehensive outline of the theory would complement eachother very well. |
|
| Feb-11-04 | | OneBadDog: The only thing I don't like about the Sicilian Dragon, along with other main lines of the Sicilian, is that most of the time the White play will play something lame like the c3 or Closed Sicilian. I hate anti-Sicilians with a passion. |
|
| Feb-11-04 | | BiLL RobeRTiE: The c3 sicilian is fun! The closed sicilian is definitely not, though. Maybe somebody here can suggest a line to play against it. |
|
| Feb-11-04 | | OneBadDog: I hate playing against the c3 Sicilian. It seems like White plays the same formulaic moves over and over again. When Black wins, he's alert to White's plans. Black only loses if he's careless. |
|
| Feb-11-04 | | Stavrogin: Thank you, SicilianDragon, for the answer. |
|
| Feb-11-04 | | SicilianDragon: 1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Be2 e6 is pretty much equal already while 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. Be3 e5 is a good line against the Closed sicilian. Black will continue with Be6, O-O, and a possible ...f5. With regard to the anti-sicilians, The same could be said for almost any other opening. If black plays 1. e4 e5, then he not only has to be prepared for the Vienna, King's Gambit, King's Indian Attack, and Bishop's Opening, but after 2. Nf3 if he plays Nf6 he needs to know a good deal of theory for both 3. d4 and 3. Nxe5 while if he plays 2...Nc6 he needs to know the Ruy Lopez, Italian Game, Three/Four Knights, Scotch Game/Gambit, etc. There are always anti-something lines, but that fact is that as a players rating increases (usually once you hit about 1200 or 1300 USCF), you will start to see that more players play the main lines. Besides, if you get Chris Ward's book, he even includes some recommendations (even if they are somewhat general) recommendations for Black against almost all the major anti-sicilians; including any major traps associated with the line he recommends. |
|
| Feb-11-04 | | zion: <If black plays 1. e4 e5, then he not only has to be prepared for the Vienna, King's Gambit, King's Indian Attack, and Bishop's Opening, but after 2. Nf3 if he plays Nf6 he needs to know a good deal of theory for both 3. d4 and 3. Nxe5 while if he plays 2...Nc6 he needs to know the Ruy Lopez, Italian Game, Three/Four Knights, Scotch Game/Gambit, etc. > exactly why I dont play 1.e4.
Instead I almost always play 1.c4 or sometimes 1.Nf3 or 1.g3 |
|
| Feb-11-04 | | BiLL RobeRTiE: Thanks for the anti-closed sicilian line. Versus the c3 sicilian I like 2...Nf6 followed by ...cxd4, ...e6, and ...b6.
1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Nbd2 offers White more chances of an advantage than 6. Be2, I think. All other 2...d5 systems offer some advantage to White, which is why I like 2...Nf6. It seems White's queenside is always wrecked in that variation. |
|
| Feb-12-04 | | Shadout Mapes: Here's something I played against the online Java tkchess, which you can find on the net by searching "tkchess" at yahoo.com. I used to have gobs of trouble beating this computer, but now it's child's play. white - tkchess
black - Shadout Mapes
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.O-O-O Rc8 11.b3? <this is probably the losing move already, leaving the bishop on the c file and fatally weakening the dark squares around the computer's king, as well as c3>
11...Ne5 12.Bd5 <I would try Bb5> 12...Nxd5 13.exd5 Qa5 14.Kb2 Qb4 <the computer evaluation gave me a few houndred points after this move> 15.Qe1 Nc4+ 16.Ka1 Nxe3 17.Qxe3 Rxc3 18.Qe4 Rfc8 19.Kb1 R8c4 20.a3 Qb6 21.Qxe7 Bxd4 22.Rxd4 <this looks forced> 22...Rxd4 23.Qxd7 Rxb3+!! <this is a move i made almost immiediatly, all of my pieces were pointed directly at the opposing king, and all of whites pieces were far from home, the computer evalutation doesn't realize it's lost> 24.cxb3 Qxb3+ 25.Ka1 <25.Kc1 Qc3+ 26.Kb1 Rd2 27.Qxb7 Qxa3 with mate shortly> 25...Rd2 <the PC evaluation jumped from about -100 to -5000 here> 26.Qf8+ Kg7 27.Qc2 Qxc2 28.Rc1 Qh2# |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
