|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-15-04 | | dafish298: ok..thats your opinion..whites queenside is completely defendable though |
|
| Sep-30-04 | | tacticsjokerxxx: <dafish> white's queenside is completely undefendable in the variation you propose where white captures the queen's knight and takes the a-pawn, black only has to sac a few pieces for the win, and by the way fritz 8 recommends Bb3 (in book) but in the motor it'll recommend Nxc6, this is one of the reasons why computers have books... so they don't play moves like that. Try 10. Nxc6 and 11.Bxa7 and 12.g4 and sit and wait until fritz figures out how to crush white in about 5 moves. |
|
| Sep-30-04 | | tacticsjokerxxx: but I do appreciate your opinion and variation nonetheless, Does anyone have any chinese dragon games to post in here? |
|
| Oct-01-04 | | SicilianDragon: Most accurate in the chinese dragon after 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Bxa7 is probably instead 12...Rb4 13. Bb3 Qa5 14. Be3 Rfb8 with definite compensation for the measly little a-pawn which, now that it is gone, gives black amazing attacking chances. |
|
| Oct-02-04 | | tacticsjokerxxx: <SicilianDragon> nice variation, I thought playing 12...♖b7 would be best, driving away the bishop winning a tempo, followed by ♕a5 and the king's rook can later come to a8 or b8 depending on the situation.
It seems quite feasable to sac the queen's bishop at g4 (fxg4 - ♘xe5) as well with good attacking chances, that is if white plays the thematic g4 move.
Anyway the chances of someone playing 11.♘xc6 bxc6 12.♗xa7 are probably quite slim so there's probably better lines in the chinese dragon to analyse.. By the way, you being a dragon expert, what book(s) on dragon theory do you reccomend? and what do you think about transposing into the dragon via 1.e4 - c5, 2.♘f3 - g6 ?
personally i like this variation as it avoids the ♗b5 lines which are becoming popular as I don't like to trade my queen's knight for a king's bishop. And I enjoy the 4.♕xd4 - ♘f6 5.e5 line. And - just curious - what opening do you play as black against 1.d4? there are structures similiar to the dragon in the pirc and the benoni so I'm just wandering if dragons players play them as well, (I think Christoffer Ward does...) /tjx |
|
| Oct-03-04 | | SicilianDragon: 12...Rb7 isn't bad either. If black can get open a- and b-files in the Benko gambit at the cost of a pawn and get queenside pressure. Surely it's even better if the white king is on the queenside!! In terms of books, I have both of Chris Ward's books on the Dragon (Winning with the Dragon and Winning with the Sicilian Dragon 2) and Ward does a great job at explaining Dragon themes. The only problem is that some of the theory is a bit old (such as his ...Qa5 system against 9. Bc4, 9. O-O-O Bd7, and 9. g4 Be6 10. O-O-O Ne5; though in his first book he does include a little bit about 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. O-O-O Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12. h4 Nc4 which is playable). However, I would definitely recommend at least one of the books because of their great explanations. In terms of other books, I never liked Gufeld and Stetsko's "Ultimate Dragon"/"Complete Dragon" because it just seemed like they shoved theory at the reader. Gufeld and Schiller's "Secrets of the Sicilian Dragon" looks horribly written; besides the fact that I don't think Schiller is a great author. Golubev's "Easy Guide to the Dragon" looks like it might be good, but personally it looks a little on the thin side. I get most of my Dragon theory from Chris Ward's Dragons section at www.chesspublishing.com. You can subscribe to just the Dragon section for I think $20 per year. I also use Tiviakov's B75-76 Informant monograph because it offers in-depth theory coverage that isn't too out-of-date even though it was published in 1995. I personally play 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 g6 and I feel it is the most accurate for Dragon players (both Accelerated and regular) precisely because it avoids the annoying lines like 2...d6 3. Bb5+, 3. c3, and 3. d4 cxd4 4. Qxd4. Hardly anyone actually plays 2. Nf3 g6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Qxd4 and I don't think it is that dangerous and the only line that really requires serious theoretical attention is 4...Nf6 5. Bb5, but even that is playable for black. The only real sidelines are 3. c3, 3. c4 or 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. f3, but even so white is probably better off just playing a Yugoslav Attack. Against 1. d4, you don't necessarily have to seek similar structures to the Dragon, though if you like fianchettoed bishops you could certainly play the Modern Defense, the Benoni, King's Inidan, Leningrad Dutch, or Queen's Indian. Ward has dabbled in the Benoni but seems to be mostly a Nimzo-Indian/Queen's Indian guy. My personal choice is the Leningrad Dutch. It gives you similar structures to the King's Indian Defense and also gives you a fianchettoed king's bishop, but with much less theory than the Dragon or KID. I used to play the King's Indian, but I found that it is extremely difficult to play two openings with such heavy amounts of theory (which may be why Kasparov, though he still plays the Najdorf, is now almost never playing the KID and sticks to the Queen's Gambit against 1. d4). You should pick an opening against 1. d4 that you like, not just because there are similar structures to the Dragon because there's no real chance of a transposition back to the Dragon. As Ward says in his book, there is nothing like operating the Dragon Bishop in the Yugoslav attack and in other openings Dragon players must learn to be flexible. However, if you like a bishop on g7, there are certainly plenty of defenses to 1. d4 to choose from. |
|
| Oct-04-04 | | tacticsjokerxxx: Thanks for the informative answer,
12...♖b7 13.♗e3-♕a5 14.g4-♗xg4! 15.fxg4-♘xe4! 16.♕d3-♗xc3!! 17.♗b3 and black wins, that's my little analysis of the "chinese dragon accepted" so to speak ,)
i've checked it with fritz and it is sound by the way.and like you said, the chinese dragon accepted is a bit like playing the benko gambit with a queenside castle which of course is quite insane. Ok i'm going to buy those books by Chris Ward since i've heard good opinions about them, thanks, I might subscribe to that chesspublishing site as well, looks nice. <I personally play 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 g6 and I feel it is the most accurate for Dragon players (both Accelerated and regular) precisely because it avoids the annoying lines like 2...d6 3. Bb5+, 3. c3, and 3. d4 cxd4 4. Qxd4.> exactly, finally someone agrees that 2.-g6 is a good move! however you've still got to face the pesky anti-sicilians like 2.c3/b3/b4/d3/d4 or g3 ;) <Hardly anyone actually plays 2. Nf3 g6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Qxd4> I'd have to disagree there, in blitz games at my club i meet it approx. 1 out of 3 times i play 2.-g6. 2 out of three i get the usual 2.Nf3 and occasionally i get a maroczy bind, in which i usually use the simagin-system with Nh6. have a look at this game
Judit Polgar vs Larsen, 1992
I agree that the 4.♕xd4 5.♗b5 is probably white's best answer to 2.-g6 (as we can see in that game for example, even if Larsen WAS winning) and it seems like 5.-a6 (not 5.-♘c6? is feasible for black, but 5.-♗g7 6.e5-♘g8? seems quite playable too. Well the reason i sortof seek a similiar structure to the dragon against 1.d4 is because i feel like the past year or so i've gotten a much better 'feel' for openings with g3/g6 and d3/d6 (as white i often play 1.c4 2.g3 3.Bg2 4.d3 etc.)
So i'd like to play something with that 'feel' against 1.d4 and the closest i can find is the benoni which i'm thinking about employing instead of my tarrasch-defense or queen's indian which i'm not scoring too well with right now. By the way I think GM Chris Ward has written a couple of books on the benoni and he seems to know his theory >
S Meenakshi vs C Ward, 2004
Thanks again for recommending ward's books and pointing out that 2.-g6 really IS a good move! |
|
| Oct-04-04 | | tacticsjokerxxx: Apropos the hyperaccelerated:
1.e4-c5 2.♘f3-g6 3.d4-cxd4 4.♕xd4-♘f6 5.e5-♘c6 6.♕f4-♘d5 7.♕e4-♘db4 8.a3-d5 nice line, looks complex and fun.
De Vreugt vs P Schuurman, 2001 |
|
| Oct-04-04 | | Spassky69: Okay this is the best game I've ever played and it involves a piece sacrifice in the opening to get the initiative from white and develop a crushing attack. This game was even sent to several GM's and some GM's even gave 14. Bxg4!! two !!. To view this game copy the text from 1 to Re7 then click paste into Fritz or Chessmaster 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 O-O 8.Qd2
Nc6 9.O-O-O Bd7 10.Nb3 a6 11.Kb1 Ne5 12.Qf2 b5 13.g4 Bxg4 14.Bb6 Qb8
15.fxg4 Nc4 16.Ba5 Nxg4 17.Qh4 Nge3 18.Rd3 Qb7 19.Rg1 Qa7 20.Qg3 Be5
21.Qh3 Nxc2 22.Ne2 Rfc8 23.Bc3 N4a3+ 24.bxa3 Nxa3+ 25.Ka1 Rxc3 26.Rxc3
b4 27.Rg5 bxc3 28.Rxe5 dxe5 29.Nxc3 Qf2 30.Bd3 Nb5 31.Ne2 Nd4 32.Nexd4
exd4 33.Qg3 Qxg3 34.hxg3 a5 35.Kb2 Rb8 36.a4 e5 37.Bb5 Ra8 38.Nd2 f6
39.Nc4 Kg7 40.Kc2 Ra7 41.Kd3 Kh6 42.Ke2 Kh5 43.Kf3 h6 44.Bc6 Kg5 45.Ke2
h5 46.Be8 Re7 0-1 |
|
| Oct-04-04 | | tacticsjokerxxx: 14.Bxg4 huh? I'll have a look through the whole game shortly but have a look at the line I posted two spaces up a few hours ago <12...b7 13.e3-a5 14.g4-♗xg4! 15.fxg4-♘xe4! 16.d3-♗xc3!! 17.b3 and black wins> 14.-Bxg4 got popular already? haha. |
|
Oct-04-04
 | | offramp: ♗xg4 is a great move; it is a big surprise in what looks like a fairly standard opening. It cuts down white's attacking chances a lot - how can he get at black's king-side?
A very good game. |
|
| Oct-04-04 | | Spassky69: that was Bxg4 in a different and more unclear situation. haha but I guess it was a different game not my own I saw in some Russian '64 magazine of (well at least I like to call it my variation) but I've still never seen it in any other game then my own maybe Bxg4 in a different variation though. |
|
| Oct-05-04 | | SicilianDragon: That game is too old to be of theoretical value, though 13...Bxg4!! (definitely two !!) is very nice. The whole 9. O-O-O Bd7 system really isn't playable any more as it is just too slow 10. g4! (wasting no time and preventing a future ...h5. 10. Nb3 is not only wimpy, it also makes it easier for the Bg7 to x-ray to c3, combined with a rook on the c-file)) Ne5 11. h4 and White's attack is off at full speed. 12. Qf2? was totally unnecessary since 12...Nc4 wasn't even threatened and even if black plays ...b5 or ...Rc8 and then Nc4 white should jump at the opportunity to take because he can connect the rooks with tempo. The Ne5-c4 idea is much stronger in lines where white has played Bc4 because white has already spent time developing the bishop. |
|
| Nov-09-04 | | cuendillar: Why does black always seem to avoid a bishop swap at g7 in most games, instead of using a tempo to retreat it to h8 or swap at h6? How do you refute his omittance of doing so? |
|
| Nov-09-04 | | Poisonpawns: Study Alexei Fedorov`s games I think he is the best Dragon theorist in the world. |
|
| Nov-10-04 | | SicilianDragon: Cuendillar, I am a bit confused by the way you phrased your question but I will try to answer it. Black usually avoid the bishop swap at g7 because if he can maintain the bishop it is especially useful in defending the weak dark squares around black's king, providing positional pressure along the long diagonal, and aiding in potential attacks when white castles queenside. If he cannot retreat the bishop to h8 (usually this occurs when there is a rook on f8 and bg7-h8 would drop the exchange to Bxf8) it is often advantageous to play Bxh6 so as to not lose any tempo by being forced to play ...Kxg7 after Bxg7 which often puts the king in a vulnerable position (he is often exposed to quick attacks via Qd2-h6+ supported by a rook on h1 or by tactics surrounding a Nf5+ sacrifice). In addition, ...Bxh6 usually forces the replay Qxh6 which often then allows either an advantageous exchange sacrifice on c3 which severely weakens white's queenside (this is especially effective when white has castled queenside). In addition, if white has a minor piece on d4 the removal of the queen to h6 may allow for the advanteous removal of that piece. If black leaves the bishop at g7, the refutation (if there is one) would depend upon the position. Often there is the possibility of an immediate attack with Bxg7 followed by Qh6+ if possible. However, if black is unable to retreat the bishop to h8 (as mentioned before, this most frequently occurs when a black rook is at f8), white may find it more advantageous to wait to exchange the bishops and spend the extra move making a preparatory move that will aid in the forthcoming kingside onslaught. Poisonpawns, while Federov was once regarded as a Dragon expert because he was one of the few "super-GMs" who regularly used the opening, he has not used it recently. Usually the best games to study are those of Dragon players who have stuck by the opening for many years because they tend to have the best feel for the positions whereas a GM who plays it for surprise value or prepares it for a particularly tournament will have knowledge that is based on experience rather than theory and it is the ideas and not the theory that an amateur should seek to extract from grandmaster games. Given how rapidly Dragon theory changes, this is especially true for this opening. For the Dragon, this mostly includes the strong British GMs from the 80s and 90s: Tony Miles (in his early career), William Watson, Jonathan Mestel, and Chris Ward. While Federov may be a stronger player than any of those four (with the arguable exception of Tony Miles), all of these players had/have much more experience with the Dragon and thus their games are more likely to be more instructive. |
|
| Nov-11-04 | | Poisonpawns: Well said siciliandragon, I just met to say he is really the only one at present staying faithfull to the dragon at that level. Shirov vs Fedorov 1999 is very instructive by the way :-) |
|
| Dec-26-04 | | SnipingBishop: Hi, im a dragoneer too! <SicilianDragon> i have both Chris Ward's books and im shocked to hear that his recommended ...Qa5 line is refuted!? can you please give me some explanation and example games if possible? |
|
| Dec-26-04 | | SnipingBishop: Oh yeah BTW i dont get how 2...g6 can avoid 3 c3. Wont White still be able to support his d pawn and establish a strong centre with pawns on e4 and d4? |
|
| Feb-08-05 | | akashic: 2 g6 doesn't avoid c3 but if white were to play it he would have a hard time mantaining his classical centre. |
|
| Mar-26-05 | | Cornwallis: hey eddy dearings new book on the dragon is out great book practically refutes the open sicilian |
|
| Mar-26-05 | | Cornwallis: nice to know that tere are a lot of other dragoneers like me out there |
|
Mar-26-05
 | | Eric Schiller: <snipingbishop> The 10...Qa5 line is not refuted. That was the title of the article, but a little work finds improvements for Black, already played! As for 2...g6 3.c3, it isn't a big deal for White. You can avoid it with 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nf3/Nc3 c5, leading to very interesting and often unexplored lines. None of the anti-Sicilian systems are particularly scary these days, so nothing wrong with the traditional move order. Whatever you do, you have learn all the alternative lines.
In the Yugoslav, don't neglect Black's alternatives to 9...Bd7, some of them are fun and White is generally unprepared! |
|
| May-28-05 | | AdrianP: Here's a blitz game of mine which shows how even a patzer like me can follow the sac, sac, mate formula. Fritz's analysis awarded me three exclamation marks... which is an all-time record for me. AP-RL [B75]
Rated game, 5m + 5s Main Playing Hall, 28.05.2005
[Fritz 8 (60s)]
B75: Sicilian Dragon: Yugoslav Attack, Miscellaneous
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 g6 7.f3 Bg7 8.Qd2 0-0 9.h4 [ 9.Bh6 Nc6 10.Bxg7 Kxg7 11.Bc4 Bd7 12.Bb3 Qc7 13.0-0-0 b5 14.h4 Na5 15.h5 Rh8 16.Nd5 Nxb3+ 17.axb3 Nxd5 18.exd5 Rhc8 19.hxg6 Rh8 20.Qh6+ 1-0 Livensky,E-Nikolaev,A/Kiev 2002/EXT 2003] 9...Qb6N [ 9...Nh5 10.0-0-0 Qc7 11.Nd5 Qd8 12.Ne2 Nd7 13.g4 e6 14.Ndc3 Bxc3 15.Qxc3 Qf6 16.gxh5 Qxf3 17.Bh6 Qxc3 18.Nxc3 Re8 19.Rxd6 Nf6 20.hxg6 hxg6 21.Bg5 Nh5 22.Rg1 b5 23.Be2 Ng7 24.h5 Paramos Dominguez,R-Blas,J/Mondariz 1998/EXT 2002/1-0;
9...b5 10.Bh6 e5 11.Nb3 Bxh6 12.Qxh6 b4 13.Ne2 Qc7 14.Qg5 Ne8 15.Qd2 a5 16.a3 Nc6 17.axb4 Nxb4 18.c3 Nc6 19.h5 Be6 20.Nbc1 Rd8 21.Nd3 Bc4 22.Ng3 d5 23.hxg6 fxg6 24.exd5 Brasch,H-Konieczka,F/Germany 1988/GER-chT/½-½ (42);
9...d5 10.Bh6 Bxh6 11.Qxh6 e5 12.Nb3 d4 13.Nd5 Be6 14.c4 Nc6 15.h5 Bxd5 16.exd5 Nb4 17.Qd2 a5 18.a3 Na6 19.hxg6 fxg6 20.Qxa5 Qxa5+ 21.Nxa5 Nc5 22.b4 Rf7 23.Kd1 e4 24.Kc2 Middelburg,T-Slaa,R/Hengelo 1994/EXT 2001/0-1 (55);
9...d5!? should be examined more closely 10.exd5 Nxd5²] 10.0-0-0 Nc6 [ ¹10...Qa5±] 11.Nf5!  Discovered attack 11...Qc7 [ 11...gxf5 12.Bxb6] 12.Nxg7 Kxg7 13.Bh6+ Kg8 14.Bxf8 Kxf8 15.g4 Be6 16.h5 Ne5 [ 16...Qa5 is no salvation 17.Qh6+ Ke8 18.hxg6 fxg6 19.g5 ] 17.Be2 [ 17.hxg6 keeps an even firmer grip 17...fxg6 18.g5 Nh5 ] 17...gxh5 [ 17...Qc5 does not help much 18.hxg6 fxg6 19.g5 ] 18.g5 [ 18.gxh5?! b5 ] 18...Nfd7 19.Rxh5 Kg7 [ 19...b5 doesn't change anything anymore 20.f4 b4 21.Na4 ( 21.fxe5?! is no comparison 21...bxc3 22.Qxc3 Qxc3 23.bxc3 Nxe5 ) ] 20.Rdh1 [ 20.f4 seems even better 20...Rh8 ] 20...Nf8 21.g6! Demolition of pawn structure 21...fxg6 Blocks the square `8 [ 21...Kxg6 Decoy theme: g6 22.Qh6#] 22.Rxh7+! Demolishes the pawn shield. 22...Nxh7 23.Qh6+ Kf7 [ 23...Kf6 does not solve anything 24.Qh4+ ( ‹24.Qxh7 Qc5 ) 24...Ng5 25.f4 ] 24.Qxh7+ Ke8 25.Qh8+ Kd7 26.Qxa8 b5 [ 26...Qc8 the last chance for counterplay 27.Qxc8+ Kxc8 ] 27.Rh8 Nf7 28.Qe8# (Lag: Av=0.48s, max=1.1s) 1-0 |
|
| Oct-08-05 | | AlexanderMorphy: why isn't the dragon played more often at GM Level? I know that they prefer the Najdorf but i'd expected them to play it more often than 2 games out of 1000! |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
