chess moves

Chess Moves

Share and you will gain!
Nutty name, real hobbies
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
nwadvana 7 ( +1 | -1 )
Sicilain Dragon Any reccommended books with equal amounts of theory and concepts.?
mikhail_tal 13 ( +1 | -1 )
Books Winning with the Sicilian Dragon 2 by Chris Ward. A must have for every dragon player (like myself).
invincible1 11 ( +1 | -1 )
oh is it? i love the sicilian dragon and play only this line of sicilian nowadays. but I have no book....... :-(
north 6 ( +1 | -1 )
heres a good one: Secrets Of The Sicilian Dragon
by Eduard Gufeld

hih...
North
white_disc 32 ( +1 | -1 )
The dragon seems to have a rather poor record at the 4th IECC 2003, if u check the games of the past few rounds.

Have not checked the specific games yet, though.

What are the specific systems White has against the Dragon ?

Thanks a lot :)



Best regards,
white_disc
dracula2003 102 ( +1 | -1 )
Golubev's book is the best I have all recent Dragon books, so I may supply a short book review :-)

Tiviakov "B75-76" - quite rigid because it is made in ECO format. No text, only variations.

Gufeld and Stetko "Ultimate Dragon" (2 books)- good for beginner, very bad for advanced players. Stetko updated an old Dragon book of Gufeld (a very good one that time) and added some superficial analysis.

A.Schneider "Sicilian Dragon" (2 books), bad for beginner, quite interesting for advanced players albeit it contains many wrong analysis.

Ward "Winning with the Dragon 2" - good for players rated around 1600-2000. To use this book in correspondence chess is like a suicide.

Golubev "Easy Guide To Dragon" - the best Dragon book published last years. Very good comments and explanations, careful analysis. Buy it!

Of course you may read my series of surveys "New Ideas In The Sicilian Dragon" published at ccn.correspondencechess.com :-)
mikhail_tal 6 ( +1 | -1 )
Dragon 2 Why is using this book in correspondence chess suicide?
atrifix 6 ( +1 | -1 )
Does Golubev's book analyze the Qa5 line (specifically with 13. g4)?
mattafort 61 ( +1 | -1 )
Sicilian Dragon at IECC 2003 Sicilian Dragon, ECO B70-B79
31 games at Euro Championship Men 2003

+9 =13 -9 (50%)

213.100.118.115:7000/mattachess/files/SicDragonIECC2003.html
213.100.118.115:7000/mattachess/files/SicDragonIECC2003.pgn

The .html is an Opening Report with Theory Table.
Both files generated with SCID "Shane's chess information database"
scid.sourceforge.net/
dracula2003 117 ( +1 | -1 )
Ward & Golubev's books Ward's book is very subjective. Ward simply think he is always right. The risky variations he recommendaded for Black are intersting for OTB events, but doesn't hold in CC, for example:
9.0-0-0 Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Be6 11.Kb1 Qc7 12.h4! Rfc8 13.h5! Qa5 14.hxg6 hxg6 15.a3 and Black can not equalize if White would play very accurately. I frequently played the line 9...Nxd4 as Black, but I doubt about its corectness. :-)
9.Bc4 Bd7 10.0-0-0 Qa5?! (Golubev recommends Soltis' variation 10...Rc8 as the best line and I agree with him) 11.h4 Rfc8 12.Bb3 Ne5 13.Kb1! and Black can't solve the opening problems in my opinion.
To "atfrix": if you refer to line above mentioned, I think it is treated in Golubev's book, but anyway he recommends 13.Kb1! as the best line. After 13.Kb1! Black is in trouble. Of course in OTB games you may play 13...b5 for example, but try it in CC games and you will see what happens :-))
Ward's analysis are very superficial. He thinks that if he defeated a 2200 rated player in a certain line, then that line is perfect. The most intersting idea I found in Ward's book was 17...Qb7!? in the line 9.0-0-0 Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Be6 11.Kb1 Qc7 12.h4! Rfc8 13.g4 Qa5 14.Qg5 (BTW, after 14.a3 the only acceptable move is 14...h5) 14...b5 15.Qxb5 Qc7 16.Qa4 Rab8 17.Ka1. Of course Ward's analyis in this line are wrong, but the idea itself is good :-)


atrifix 56 ( +1 | -1 )
Well Ward is a staunch defender and player of the Dragon, which has practically become an outmoded GM opening, so some degree of overconfidence is at least explainable, even if he sets up some future Black Dragon players for devastating attacks.

Personally I prefer the ...Rc8 variation, but ...Qa5 has become a major move. 13. Kb1 probably gives White a slight pull in a relatively balanced position, but I'm really interested in the critical 13. g4 line and major improvements over the famous game Nunn-Ward (most of Ward's suggestions have been practically refuted).
poulovas 19 ( +1 | -1 )
10...Qa5 To Dracula2003:I use both lines 10...Rc8(Soltis) and 10...Qa5 but with the second line I have more wins.The games usually continue:10...Qa5 11.h4 Rfc8 Bb3 12.h5 .May I have your opinion? Sorry for my English!
tyekanyk 61 ( +1 | -1 )
9.O-O-O! I think this is the best move at White dissposal. Whenever I try playing the Dragon at chessclub I get this line. I've tried 9...d5, although I play this line with the White pieces ( 9...d5 10.exd5 Nxd5 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Nxd5 cxd5 13.Qxd5 Qc7 14.Qc5 Qb7 15.Qa3 ) and think this is super strong.
As for the line 9...Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Be6 11.Kb1 Qc7, I found an analysis of Sosonko with the move 12.Bb5!, with the idea Ba4-b3 and playing a pawn ending with a slight plus for White.
But there is another alternative for Black: 9...Bd7, though I don't know how many of you would like playing something like that.

dracula2003 166 ( +1 | -1 )
Dragon lines At the moment I can't read my Dragon books because they are at my chess club (70 km far from my city) and I will go there only next week. :-)

To "atfrix": All I know is Black can't equalize in the line 9.Bc4 ...Qa5...13.Kb1! I also analysed 13.g4 and in my OTB games I would play 13...Rc4 (Veresov's sacrifice) where I found out some improvements. I never played agaist this line in CC games, so my experience is limited. Sincerly I am less interested now in the line 13.g4 because I am convinced Black is worse after 13.Kb1! so I have no reason to play Veresov-Dubinin System anymore. :-)

To "poulovas": 13.h5 is not so good. In this line Black is OK, if you know to play Rxc3 at the right moment :-)

To "tyekanyk": 12.Bb5 (treated in New in Chess Yearbook some issues ago) is intersting, but not very dangerous for Black. It is very good as surprise because Black has to play very accurately.
Try better this main line:

Bennedik,M - Demian,V [B76]
ICCF Champions League 2002-2003

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 9.0–0–0 Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Be6 11.Kb1 Qc7 12.h4 Rfc8 13.h5 Qa5 14.hxg6 hxg6 15.a3 Rab8 16.Bd3 Bc4 17.Bxc4 Rxc4 18.Qc1!N e6 19.g4 b5 [19...Nxe4 20.Bxg7 Nxc3+ 21.Bxc3; 19...Rxd4 20.Rxd4 Nd5 21.Rxd5 exd5 22.Nxd5; 19...e5 20.Be3 b5 21.Bh6 Bh8 22.Rxd6; 19...Qa6] 20.g5 Nh5 [20...b4 21.gxf6 bxc3 22.fxg7 Rxd4 23.Rh8+ Kxg7 24.Rxb8] 21.Bxg7 Kxg7? [21...b4 22.axb4 Rcxb4 23.Na2 Ra4 24.Bc3 Qa6 25.b3 Rxa2; 21...Nxg7▒] 22.Rxh5!+- [22.Rxd6 b4; 22.Qd2 Rd8 (22...b4 23.Na2; 22...Qc7 23.Qxd6) 23.Rh3 Qb6 24.Rdh1 b4] 22...gxh5 [22...b4 23.Qf4 Qe5 24.Rh7+] 23.Qf4 Kg8 [23...Rxc3 24.Qf6+ Kg8 25.g6; 23...Qd8 24.Rxd6 Qf8 25.Nd5; 23...b4 24.Qf6+ Kg8 25.g6 Rc7 26.Rg1; 23...Qc7 24.Qf6+ Kf8 25.g6] 24.g6 f5 25.Rxd6 Rxc3 26.Qe5 Rc7 27.Qxe6+ Kg7 28.exf5 b4 29.f4 bxa3 30.Rd7+ 1–0

In case of 9.0-0-0 Bd7 Black's main problem is in the line 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 9.0–0–0 Bd7 10.g4 Rc8 11.h4 Ne5 12.h5 Qa5 13.Kb1 Nxf3 14.Nxf3 Rxc3 15.Qxc3 Qxc3 16.bxc3 Bxg4 17.Bg2 Nxe4 18.Rd3 Nxc3+ 19.Kb2! Nd1+ 20.Ka3 even though it's a playable position for Black
mikhail_tal 7 ( +1 | -1 )
I challenge you Dracula I will challenge you and test your analysis! I'm sending one now.
atrifix 73 ( +1 | -1 )
Actually 13. h5 has also become a critical line since the other slightly less famous Nunn-Ward 1998 game. Assuming the game continues 10. 0-0-0 Qa5 11. h4 Rfc8 12. Bb3 Ne5 13. h5, then 13... Nxh5 (13... Rxc3!? Ward)
and now:
A) 14. g4 Nf6 15. Bh6 Bxh6 16. Qxh6 Rxc3 17. bxc3 Rc8 18. Kb1 (18. g5 Nh5 19. Rxh5 gxh5 20. g6 hxg6 21. Rg1 Bg4!-+) Nc4 (18... Qxc3) 19. Bxc4 Rxc4 20. Rd3 Be6 21. Nb3 Qb5 22. Qe3= (22. g5 Nh5 23. Rxh5 gxh5 24. Qxh5)
B) 14. Bh6 Nd3+ 15. Kb1 Nxb2 16. Kxb2 Bxh6 17. Qxh6 Qxc3+ 18. Kb1 a5 19. Rxh5 gxh5 20. Bxf7+ Kxf7 21. Qxh7+ Kf8=.
C) 14. Nd5! Qxd2+ 15. Rxd2 Kf8 16. g4 Nf6 17. Rdh2 (17. Nxf6 Bxf6 18. Rxh7 Kg8 19. Rh1 [19. Rdh2 e6!?] a5! unclear, Glek-Hodgson 1995, 1/2-1/2(51)) 17... Nxd5 18. Bxd5 Nc6 (maybe 18... Bc6? 18... Rc7 19. Bh6 Bxh6+ 20. Rxh6 e6 21. Bb3 a5 22. Rxh7 Rac8 23. a3 b5 24. g5 Nd3+ 25. Kb1 Nc5 26. Ba2 b4 27. axb4 axb4 28. R1h4+=, Olafsson-Hort, 1972, 1-0(47)) 19. Nxc6 bxc6 20. Bc4+/-, Nunn-Ward, 1998, 1-0(36).
premium_steve 5 ( +1 | -1 )
sicilians are stupid play c3 as white and forget about it as black.
premium_steve 3 ( +1 | -1 )
play c3 sicilian i mean
olympio 4 ( +1 | -1 )
steve e4 c5 c3 is my specialty if u want to play a game
crazkidlvnlrg 8 ( +1 | -1 )
Dragon┐┐ I have never heard of that game beefore? cna u tell me about it?
poulovas 4 ( +1 | -1 )
Strange variants It is a variant I use to play.It isn't main line.
crazkidlvnlrg 3 ( +1 | -1 )
of what What game is it a variant of. and is it any fun