Greetings,

Scholar wrote on 07/01/06 at 08:19:29:


Whilst we're on the subject of sources, I have the following:

The Sicilian Dragon, David Levy (Batsford, 1973)
How to Play the Sicilian Defence, David Levy & Kevin J. O'Connell (Batsford, 1987)
Sicilian Dragon: Classical & Levenfish Variations, Laszlo Sapi & Attila Schneider (Batsford, 1990)
Winning With The Dragon, Chris Ward (Batsford, 1994)

I also have a general openings book:

Batsford Chess Openings 2, Gary Kasparov & Raymond Keene (Batsford, 1989)

Unfortunately, I don't have Sapi & Schneider's matching book on the Yugoslav Bc4 Variation - it was being updated/reprinted at the time and I never got round to buying it.  

Obviously, I have other books but these are my openings' books related to the Sicilian, if not the Dragon per se.

Perhaps we could pool our "sources"!?  

In my own defence, I haven't examined the above line - I merely quoted it as an example of a possible continuation according to the authors.

As an aside, e2e4, I noted that WWTD1 (not 2!) does mention 9. h4. This is in chapter 4, "The Yugoslav Attack - Introduction" (pages 32-41), where - on page 40 - Ward has the following to say:

Quote:


It would be interesting if this - or something similar - appears in WWTD2!?

The recommendation is certainly in keeping with the old adage, "An attack on the flank is best met with an attack on the centre, and vice versa".

(I also noted that he mentions the 10 Qe1!? move I faced in the game I posted elsewhere - see http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1151693701 - where I seem to have improved on his analysis!  

It seems that Sapi and Schneider are not the only Dragon experts overlooking possibilities!  )

Kindest regards,

James

Quote:


Unfortunately, I lack these old sources, and Qg5 didn't show up in my database search, although it appears to be fairly dangerous.  S&S's analysis looks a little suspect in a couple of places, mainly allowing for White to improve:

14.Qg5 Qc7 

Line A: 15.Bxf6 exf6 16.Qh4 Re8= and not 15...Bxf6? 16.Qh6 Rd8 17.Rxd8+ Qxd8 18.Qh7+ Kf8 19.Qh8+ Bxh8 20.Rxh8+ Kg7 21.Rxd8 +-


Line B: 15.Be5 Qb6? 16.Nd5 It is amazing that this was overlooked in the text, considering the two lines that they did give! Nxd5 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Qh6+ Kf6 19.Qxf8 etc. is winning and so obviously, Black should avoid walking into the Nd5 fork.

(15.Nd5? is bad for White, although Black has much better than 17...Qf4+; simply Kxg7 is winning since Rh8 is strong.  In the line you mentioned, 19.Be5 (threatening mate on h8) allows White a little more time to regroup, though he still ends up worse.)

15...Qc6 is the only option -- I'll look at that next, but White is doing well here -- he can obtain a position similar to Tate-Cripe and can probably play for even more.

It may be worth noting that Black can probably transpose to WWTDII if he desires by playing an immediate Qa5, so this might solve e2e4's difficulty, but theoretically those lines are not serving Black well these days.

Of course, 14.Qg5 is available only after 13...exf3(?) -- and so Black should probably prefer one of the two alternatives (e5 or Qa5) given above.

9.h4 d5 10.h5 is surely the critical line

Tate,E - Cripe,P World Open Philadelphia 1995
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 Nc6 8.Qd2 0-0 9.h4 d5 10.h5 dxe4 11.hxg6 hxg6 12.0-0-0 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 e5 14.Bc5 Qxd2+ 15.Rxd2 exf3 16.Bxf8 Kxf8 17.gxf3 Be6 18.Nb5 Rc8 19.Nxa7 Ra8 20.Nb5 Rxa2 21.Kb1 Ra5 22.Nc3 Nd5 23.Nxd5 Bxd5 24.b4 Bxf3 25.bxa5 Bxh1 26.c4 e4 27.Rd7 e3 28.c5 Bc6 29.a6 bxa6 30.Rd6 Bf3 31.c6 e2 32.Bxe2 Bxe2 33.c7 Bg4 34.Rxa6 Be5 35.Ra8+ Ke7 36.c8Q Bxc8 37.Rxc8 Ke6 38.Kc2 Kf5 39.Rc6 f6 40.Kd3 Kf4 41.Ke2 g5 42.Kf2 f5 43.Kg2 g4 44.Ra6 ½-½

is a nice idea for Black, although the resulting position (after, say, more 17) does look a little better for White.  Probably, Black has better chances playing the same exchange sacrifice but with the queens on the board -- namely, 13...exf3 14.gxf3 Qa5 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Qh2 Rf8 17.Bb5 Be6 etc. with the expectation that Black's attack is more likely to lead somewhere than White's.

Those unhappy with Black's compensation should look to an older game between even more obscure players:

Simon,R (2280) - Mompo Ballester,V (2255) Valencia op Valencia (2), 1992

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.f3 Bg7 7.Be3 Nc6 8.Qd2 0-0 9.h4 d5 10.h5 dxe4 11.hxg6 hxg6 12.0-0-0 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 Qa5 14.g4 Rd8 15.Qh2 exf3 16.Bc4 Bxg4 17.Nd5 Rxd5 18.Bxd5 f2 19.Bc3 Qb5 20.Bxf6 exf6 21.Bxf7+ Kxf7 22.Qc7+ Kg8 23.Rd8+ Rxd8 24.Qxd8+ Kf7 25.Qc7+ Bd7 0-1

14.g4 is obviously not White's best, but Black's play seems to be the best alternative in these 9...d5 lines.

As a footnote: 10...Nxh5 is worth a second look, since Ng3 causes some problems for White's development.  However, the simple 11.Rxh5 gives White compensation -- at the moment, that's all that I see, but in such positions, deeper analysis usually turns up more ideas for the aggressor.

Salut,

when I was playing the Dragon last time once I reached the standard position after the 8th move and then my opp continues with 9. h4 and after his mistake 22. Qf7 I was lucky that I didn't lose:

Quote:


Normally if White doesn't move 9. Bc4 Black should play d5, but I tried the plan above. Now I did take a look to the Dearing-book and Wards "Winning Dragon 2". No one gives a variation about 9. h4. Is it so clear that Black can try 9... h5 to reach the main-variations or is 9... d5 the best plan?

Regards, e2e4