Dragonslayer wrote on 12/11/06 at 16:04:45:
TopNotch wrote on 12/10/06 at 01:59:55:
[quote][Sample Line - OFWATA]
[Date "2006.??.??"]
[White "Toppy"]
[Black "Toppy"]
[Round ""]
[Result "]
[WhiteElo]
[BlackElo]
[ECO "B06"]
1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 c5 4. dxc5 Qa5 5. Bd2
Qxc5 6. Nd5 b6 7. Bb4 Qc6 8. Bb5 Qb7 9. Qf3!
Bxb2 10. Bc3 Bxa1
When I read this "analysis" I couldn't believe it. Giving up your Dragon bishop for the rook on a1. I mean, come on! Not even a novice Dragon player would consider this, and I'd be d..... if I would ever contemplate it in the Leningrad Dutch.
9...Nc6 10.Bc3 f6! Followed by a6, b5 and b4 pushing the bishop off the diagonal. Then e6 pushes the knight and Nge7 follows. If White anticipates this with 11.a3, Black can play 11...a6 12.Bc4 b5 13.Bb3 e6!
I am not claiming that Black is better in these lines or even completely equal, just that they are playable.
Btw. I don't have the books by Anand - sorry Khalifman - sorry whatshisname ghost writer. And I don't think much of the authority argument when it is not substantiated by more than raw moves. I might as well rebut your "analysis" by Fritz9 analysis but then I would have no case since it thinks the position is +/- Instead I prefer to discuss opinions and analysis with real people. I already have Fritz9 and I could probably manage to buy the "Anand" books if I wanted to. Don't get me wrong I think it is ok to quote from books if people ask or if you want to get more than one take on the subject. But having me give lines, analysis and plans and then replying with quotes consisting of moves and the occasional Informator symbol from a book is really below par, don't you think?
The analysis quoted was just a teaser and not meant to be exhaustive, OFWATA obviously goes into much greater detail, and after checking the analysis myself I concur with their findings that Black's position is very difficult to play.
I gave the line with Black accepting the Rook because this was the acid test of the variation, if Black could get away with this unscathed then there would be little point of going any further. Your line works great if Black gets to make three moves in a row, but as that would be illegal in reality his position sucks.
Sure if White plays routinely and lacks tactical acumen then Black may be able to reorganise his gawd awful position but otherwise his task is herculean. Lets take the line you give for instance :
1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 c5 4. dxc5 Qa5 5. Bd2 Qxc5 6. Nd5 b6 7. Bb4 Qc6 8. Bb5 Qb7 9. Qf3!
Nc6 [Ok you develop a piece, and this move does not lose on the spot, but the good news ends there] 10.Bc3 f6 [Yes this move is quite typical in many hyper accelerated dragon lines, particularly those with (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4), however the big difference between this and the line under consideration is that Black does not gain enough tempi to reorganise his position fully by harrassing the white Queen] 11.Qg3 (Also interesting is 11.Bc4!? intending 11...a6 12.Bb3 b5 13.e5! with a clear and sizeable advantage for White) d6 12.h4 With an excellent position and the makings of a strong attack, meanwhile Black's position makes a very strange impression with the Queen on b7, Bishop on c8, pawn on f6.
You don't need Fritz9, Hiarcs or Rybka to see that Black has big problems here, and its quite easy to understand why the move order 1e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c5?! 4.dxc5 is considered unhealthy. If you want to play the Modern or Hyper Accelerated dragon there are better and more reliable ways to do so.
Topster
Pages: 1
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c5 (Read 6746 times)
