Both qb7 and rb8 have been mentioned by dearing and golubov, the analysis has been incomplete by both sources. I have worked hard on these positions as the dynamic posibilities are to my liking unfortunately the Bh6 issue remains problematic. I have tried basic ideas including 1. exchange sac on f8, attack down b file including plans with e5, d5 then e4 if ed occurs. Both seem insufficient at this time. I would love to work on this in a systematic manner. Does anyone have a reasonable way to proceed. I would like this to work for black but cannot find an answer, I have looked at this with a gm, im and fritz and seem about to give up on this work. any ides>>>

Ametanoitos wrote on 02/20/06 at 16:01:27:



I don't think another threat is the main worry - it's more that this doesn't work as it is with the bishop on d7, blocking the second rank. But where does it go to? It has to stay on the c8-h3 diagonal to keep the e6 square covered, but the only place it can go is c8. This cuts off the two rooks and makes the bishop very hard to activate, making a successful counterattack quite unlikely (quite apart from the worrying prospect of g5, sacking on h5, and pushing the g-pawn); again, this isn't based on concrete analysis, but this just feels bad for Black.

Sorry i meant 18..Rb8 19.b3 etc. 

@Ametanoitos: Thanks for sharing your analysis with us. You definitely have some interesting ideas!

The last line given by parisestmagique looks dangerous for black. Golubev writes that on 18. ... Qb7 white plays 19.b3 and it seems that his attack is faster.
In the other line with the exchange sacrifice I also looked at your analysis: 16.Nb3 Neg4:!? 17.fg4: Ne4: 18. Bf3!? Nc3:+ 19.Kc1 Nd1: 20.Rd1: b6.
I am not sure how to assess that position. It is difficult for black to activate his pawns, but it is also difficult for white to make progress.
The other line with 16.Kb2 is fun to play for black, I won a nice internet game with it!

Ametanoitos wrote on 02/15/06 at 14:17:37:


First, the issue of soundness: you'll notice the words "admittedly brief" sandwiched in between "I've had a look". Now, if I was reading this, this would not come across as something conclusive. This would come across as someone who hasn't really looked at the lines closely, but their own experiences of it aren't great. This does not mean that there isn't anything for Black. It should be very clear that this is an opinion. Not a fact. There is a distinct difference between "I don't think that this is sound, but I haven't really looked at it" and "This is not sound". Please stop treating me as though I had said the latter and misconstruing what I said. Incidentally, that goes for you too, Eric. Besides, if we all agreed, message boards would become pretty boring pretty fast, wouldn't they?

I'm not going to take a look at 19...a5 until I find any serious problems with 9...d5, as the rook-for-several-pawns endings don't tempt me either, but if or when I do that'll be my first point of call. Until then, I neither agree nor disagree with your idea. Based on my own knowledge of the Dragon in general, and FightingDragon's post, I'd lean towards White, but I wouldn't make a certain choice either way until I'd looked at it for myself.

Oh, and just to pre-empt any further straw men being set up: I mean by that that I don't personally like them, compared to the 9...d5 positions; I prefer to have the queens on. This is personal preference, and no more than that.

As for resurrected threads: you might find it annoying to search old threads, but if you want to find out about something on a message board, if the topic has been discussed before - at any time - the onus is on the person who wants to find things out to search through the old threads (in fact, in principle I think if you know there's been a thread on something and someone starts a topic saying "can anyone tell me how to play this?", you shouldn't reply; there's a search function in a forum for a reason, so people should learn to use it!). If there's a long-dormant thread with good content in it, start a new thread and put a link to the old thread in the new one; if there's one without any appreciable content, as this one was six months ago, in what way is posting in it of value? Essentially, if a thread has been quiet for some time, whether or not it was busy originally, there's probably a reason for it. Either everyone had said what they wanted to say, or there wasn't much to say in the first place. If it was the former, then feel free to reuse the old thread - but make sure you've got something useful to contribute; if the latter, start a new thread. If nothing else, if there's junk in the original thread, people are more likely to contribute more junk - on the other hand, a well-thought-out first post will attract well-thought-out posts in reply. There are enough intelligent chess players who can recognise what's worth responding to and what isn't.

A lot of my views on forum etiquette comes from being an active member of these message boards for some time. They might seem a bit strict, but they're the best-run message boards I involve myself in, and they consistently get good content because if threads don't have any useful content, they get closed. End of. Obviously standards are different according to what boards you are on, and I wouldn't expect things to be enforced as strictly here, but in terms of things like the search function, they can find the information themselves no matter how strict the rules are. That's nothing to do with rules, that's sheer laziness.

Adam

Black's idea after 19..a5 is simple.He wants to activate his pieces (maybe with Rfc8-c6-b6) with freedom. Without the Bc1 white cannot deliver mate so the idea is to play b3! at the right time to free the Bc1 and create a mating attack.19..a5 and maybe after 20.Qh4 a4! makes the idea b3 very dangerous for white. If black can play a4 then  he can recapture with the h pawn after hxg6  and free the Rf8 and maybe put him on b6 when b2 is really hot!!  I'll provide you with some old analysis of mine (when i was styding this idea). For me the problem of the Bd7 variation is the simple idea :1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 Nc6 8. Qd2
O-O 9. O-O-O Bd7 10. g4 Rc8 11. h4 Ne5 12. Be2 Qa5 13.h5 b5 14.Kb1! (or even 14.a3!?.Dearing gives only 14.Nb3 as a "!" but this is a "?!" for me) when the only logical move is 14..Rxc3 (Don't try b4 and take the d5 pawn.Trust me!...) as played by M.Carlsen against J.Smeets (Carlsen with Black) Corus 2004 but i think that if Smeets had played a timely a3 (as it was played against me recently) black's counterplay would freeze. I'd be gratefull if you find some idea there because i haven't so far...

It may well be that 19. ... a5 is an improvement over 19. ... h6, but I also don't like the position after it. Black's main problem is to create counterplay, and I have no idea how he could do that. b2, White's only weakness is safely defended and the centre is also under control.
Meanwhile, it's also not easy to see how white can break through, but as black has 0 play he can try to optimize the positions of his pieces (of course white has to act patiently as you showed in your notes).
So what does black play e.g. against 20.Qh4 followed by Nde2? White can triple his heavy pieces on the h-file, he can also play for Nf4 and Nd5.
I would be pleased if you found a solution, because this is the main variation which put me off 9. ... Bd7 so that I now play 9. ... d5!? (I'm also interested in your suggestion against 10.Kb1 Rc8 11.g4 Ne5 12.h4 Qa5 13.Be2 Rc3:!? 14.Qc3: Qc3:  15.bc3: Rc8 16.Nb3!)

Quote:



No, not that - more that starting a new thread makes more sense than using an old one. Especially one that was as old as this, with as little content as this one had (it's a bit different if there's something like 20-30 posts in a thread, since then there is likely to be something useful in the thread that players should read before responding, as it'll probably be relevant to the topic), when you first posted in it.

As for the Dragon line, it's theoretically interesting, but I don't give a sound line for Black because I don't think there is one ("theoretically interesting" and "theoretically playable" are different!). I've had an admittedly brief look at the content of both Eddie's book and Mikhail Golubev's work in "Experts vs. the Sicilian" and White's lines look quite convincing to me. Either way, I'm sticking with ...d5 for now.

Adam