Quite dissapointed that Williams didn't recommend the main line Dragon(ala Carlsen) for Black.Don't really trust Dragodorf.But I guess he has the right to recommend this;as he is scoring extremely well with this line. Any idea if this book is helpful for players 2650 or above?

The "Najdorf" began to appear regularly in international tournaments after the second World War. There were four factors that spoke in its favour:
1) novelty
2) flexibility (a6 is "a high-class waiting move" - Fischer)
3) 6 Be2 e5 [Opocensky, based on idea by Paulsen (1882!) revived by Boleslavsky (1942)] set new challenges for White. It is likely that the idea that the hole on d5 in such positions was not as serious as had previously been thought (e.g. by Tarrasch) was sparked by the 1939 match between world class players Euwe and Keres, where the same structure arose from the Ruy Lopez variation 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 O-O 9. d4 Bg4 10. d5 Na5 11. Bc2 c6!.
4) it was discovered that 6 Bg5 e6 7 Qd2 (by analogy with the feared Richter-Rauzer) was less strong against 5...a6 on account of 7...h6! (Book-Najdorf, Stockholm 1937!) with the point that if 8 Bh4 Nxe4! =+.

By the way, I am sure that MNb is pleased that the precise sequence 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 seems to have originated in the Netherlands (played by Johannes Van den Bosch).

As mentioned in my previous post Najdorf did not defend 6.Be2 e6 against Poulsen at the Olympiade 1939. And as far as I know 6.Bg5 e6 is one of the most important variations of the defence we call Najdorf-Variation. 

Your memory serves you well:
Bronstein-Opocensky, Moscow-Prague 1946 (Opocensky had played this the first time against Stulik, Prague 1945).
Aronin-Bronstein, Moscow 1947
Tolusch-Bronstein, Parnu 1947
and only then Rico Gonzalez-Najdorf, ARG-ESP radio m 1948.

At the other hand Najdorf already had defended 6.Bg5 e6 against Poulsen at the Olympiade 1939.

wcywing wrote on 08/05/09 at 14:39:51:


The Najdorf has been called the Opocensky Variation, after the Czech player who defended 5...a6 6.Be2 (the most common move in the 40-s) e5 several times.

What determines a name is consensus. You can name a line the Zilbermintz-Wobblebob Gambit as often as you like, if you are the only one it will not be relevant. So GM Golubev's chances have not improved now Paddy prefers Reshevsky-Dragon ...

"Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Oh, how we go round in circles on this forum!   We would waste less time if users would only learn how to use the "Search" facility.

Started by IMRichardPalliser | Post by Paddy
IMRichardPalliser wrote on 05/27/06 at 11:32:39:
Has theory yet settled on a name for this? I guess, as it's a hybrid of the Dragon and Najdorf, it shouldn't contain all the letters of either, hence my preference for Dragodorf!


I find all of these names are ugly and artificial - just because it seems a sort of hybrid line doesn't mean it should have a hybrid name.

Great players played this way long before our time. Botvinnik played this set-up in his famous win against Littlewood (Hastings 61-2) and he wrote that he borrowed the idea from Reshevsky (e.g. Bisguier-Reshevsky, match 1957), so maybe we should just call it the Reshevsky variation of the Dragon.

Botvinnik gave it up after he got a difficult game against a much lower-rated player called Krutikhin in a 1963 Soviet team event. Later however it was tried in odd games by the likes of Stein, Polugaevsky and even Petrosian!

I suspect that in the UK there has been a sort of underground awareness of this concept among pros for some time. I vaguely recall a game of Hodgson's, but I can't locate it at the moment.

Update 5th August 2009:
The focus of both the then elite grandmasters, Reshevsky (USA) and Botvinnik (USSR) was clearly to find a playable defence for Black against the attacking set-up with Be3, f3, Qd2 and 0-0-0, developed in the USSR by Rauser and apparently much analysed in Yugoslavia by Vukovic. Little known until the 1950s, this attack evolved very fast and was quickly recognized by theory as being critical for the whole Dragon. Botvinnik liked the Dragon very much and had played some great games on the black side in the 1930s, but he recognized very early the dangers of the Yugoslav and for a while he would only enter the Dragon via the Classical, after 6 Be2. Then he spotted Reshevsky's idea and decided to try it, but was clearly not satisfied and gave it up after only three games, yet he obviously worked on it seriously, since some analysis of it is included in his once secret notebooks.

On balance I would still argue for it to be called the Reshevsky variation.

By the way, there are many examples of combining g6 with a6 in other Sicilian lines, but the Reshevsky variation (aka Dragadorf etc - yukh) should be regarded specifically as an anti-Yugoslav Attack measure.

9. a4 was also played in a slightly different position (with ...Nbd7 in instead of ...Bg7) in Kavalek-Bilek 1967, which has been cited in some books over the decades as casting doubt on Black's play.

MNb wrote on 08/04/09 at 22:20:09:


The claims of Reshevsky and Botvinnik rest on the following games (see below). While the Littlewood-Botvinnik game is the most famous, Reshevsky played it earlier. It's not unlikely that Reshevsky's play against such a capable opponent as Bisguier was noticed by Botvinnik, but I don't know this. To my mind Reshevsky has a stronger claim on the setup than Botvinnik.

I have not been able to find those YUG-ch games though, could you provide the game data?

[Event "New York m2"]
[Site "New York"]
[Date "1957.??.??"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Bisguier, Arthur Bernard"]
[Black "Reshevsky, Samuel Herman"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B75"]
[EventType "match"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 a6 8. Bc4 b5 9. Bb3 Bb7 10. Qd2 h5 11. a4 b4 12. Na2 a5 13. c3 bxc3 14. Nxc3 Na6 15. O-O O-O 16. Rfd1 Kh7 17. Qf2 Nd7 18. g4 Nac5 19. gxh5 Nxb3 20. hxg6+ fxg6 21. Nxb3 Ne5 22. Nd4 Qd7 23. Qh4+ Kg8 24. Qg3 Rf7 25. Bc1 Raf8 26. f4 Ng4 27. h3 Nf6 28. Qxg6 Qxh3 29. Ra3 Ng4 0-1

[Event "USA-ch"]
[Site "New York"]
[Date "1957.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Di Camillo, Attilio"]
[Black "Reshevsky, Samuel Herman"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B72"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 a6 7. h3 b5 8. Be2 Bb7 9. Bf3 Nbd7 10. O-O Bg7 11. a4 b4 12. Nd5 Ne5 13. Nxb4 Nxe4 14. Nbc6 Nxc6 15. Bxe4 d5 16. Bf3 Na5 17. Nb3 Nxb3 18. cxb3 Bxb2 19. Ra2 Bf6 20. Bh6 e6 21. Re1 Qd6 22. Rc2 Kd7 23. Qd2 Rac8 24. Rec1 Rxc2 25. Rxc2 Rc8 26. Rxc8 Bxc8 27. b4 Qe5 28. Be3 Qc3 29. Qxc3 Bxc3 30. Bc5 Kc6 31. Be2 Be5 32. Bf8 Bd6 33. b5+ axb5 34. axb5+ Kc5 35. Bh6 Bd7 36. Bc1 Kb6 37. Be3+ Bc5 38. Bg5 Bxb5 39. Bd8+ Kc6 40. Bd1 e5 0-1

[Event "Hastings 1961/62"]
[Site "Hastings"]
[Date "1961.??.??"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Littlewood, John Eric"]
[Black "Botvinnik, Mikhail"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B75"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 a6 8. Bc4 b5 9. Bb3 Bb7 10. Qd2 Nbd7 11. O-O-O Nc5 12. Kb1 Nxb3 13. cxb3 O-O 14. Bh6 Bxh6 15. Qxh6 b4 16. e5 Nd7 17. h4 bxc3 18. h5 dxe5 19. hxg6 Nf6 20. bxc3 exd4 21. gxh7+ Kh8 22. Rxd4 Qa5 23. Qe3 Nd5 24. Qd2 Nxc3+ 25. Ka1 Rad8 26. Rc1 Qxa2+ 27. Qxa2 Nxa2 28. Rxd8 Rxd8 0-1

[Event "URS-chT"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1963.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Krutikhin, Yury Petrovich"]
[Black "Botvinnik, Mikhail"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B75"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. f3 Bg7 7. Be3 a6 8. Bc4 b5 9. Bb3 Bb7 10. Qd2 Nbd7 11. Bh6 Bxh6 12. Qxh6 Nc5 13. O-O-O Nxb3+ 14. cxb3 Qb6 15. Kb1 O-O-O 16. b4 Kb8 17. Nb3 Rhg8 18. h4 Rc8 19. Na5 Rc7 20. Qf4 Rgc8 21. g4 Rf8 22. g5 Nd7 23. Nd5 Bxd5 24. exd5 Ne5 25. Qe4 f5 26. gxf6 Rxf6 27. Rhf1 Ka8 28. Rc1 Nxf3 29. Rxf3 1/2-1/2