Sorry could nor resist posting a blitz game played today in 9 g4 line. Not much quality but still fun for black. It appeared that I found a novelty over the board.

[Event "Friendly Game, 2m + 2s"]
[Site "Playchess.com Café"]
[Date "2011.01.30"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Guest2373140"]
[Black "Tomas Bragesjö"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B76"]
[Annotator "Bragesjö,Tomas"]
[PlyCount "26"]
[EventDate "2011.01.30"]
[TimeControl "120+2"]

1. e4 {1} c5 {1} 2. Nf3 {2} d6 {1} 3. d4 {0} cxd4 {1} 4. Nxd4 {0} Nf6 {1} 5.
Nc3 {0} g6 {1} 6. Be3 {2} Bg7 {1} 7. f3 {1} Nc6 {1} 8. Qd2 {2} O-O {1} 9. g4 {4
} Be6 {2} 10. Nxe6 {3} fxe6 {1} 11. Bc4 {1} Qc8 {4} 12. Bb3 {1} Ne5 {
turns out to be a novelty 1} (12... Na5 {is only move in opening book}) 13. Qf2
$4 {32} (13. Qe2 Nxf3+ 14. Qxf3 Nd5 15. Nxd5 (15. Qg3 Be5 16. Qg1 Bxc3+ 17.
bxc3 Qxc3+ 18. Ke2 Nf4+ 19. Bxf4 Rxf4 20. Qe3 Qe5 21. Bxe6+ Kg7 22. Bd5 e6 23.
Bxb7 d5 24. Bxa8 Rxe4 25. Qxe4 Qxe4+ 26. Kf2 Qf4+ 27. Ke2 Qxg4+ 28. Kd2 Qd4+
29. Ke2 Qc4+ 30. Kd2 Qd4+ 31. Ke2 Qe4+ 32. Kd2 Qf4+ 33. Ke2 Qb8 34. Bxd5 Qe5+
35. Kd3 Qxd5+ $17) 15... Rxf3 16. Nxe7+ Kh8 17. Nxc8 Rxe3+ 18. Kf2 Rxe4 19.
Rae1 Rxe1 20. Rxe1 Rxc8 21. Rxe6 Bxb2 $11) (13. O-O Nc4 $11) 13... Ne8 $17 {
Guest2373140 geeft op (Lag: Av=0.81s, max=2.0s) 11} (13... Nfxg4 $19) 0-1

The question is: what is the line that refutes it? 9.O-O-O with 10.Kb1 or the main line that Shankland played? Or it is best to try 9.g4 which has become critical? Or play the Yacovich's lines from "Sicilian Attacks"? By the way, does he offer something on the Swiss Dragon's challenge lines with this ...b5 pawn sac?

John Fedorowicz has made some similar comments when he did a video-review of a dragon-game. I don`t remember which game it was. He didn`t say that it was refuted, but that black`s life in general was very difficult.

I was reading an article at chess.com from IM Sam Shankland about the 4th Berkeley International, and was surprised to read the following comment about his 2'nd round game against Roman Yankovsky:

"Round 2 was similarly easy. I had much more success looking up my opponent in chessbase this time than the previous round, and I saw that he plays the Dragon against 1. e4. I’ve been playing 1.d4 almost exclusively for over a year, but when I saw that he played such a clearly refuted opening I decided to give 1.e4 a whirl again. Soon enough, I was licking my chops!"

He did win the game, but I'm wondering about The Dragon being "clearly refuted." That's a pretty bold statement considering the opening is still played high levels. Was he serious, or just engaging in a little hyperbole?

http://www.chess.com/article/view/4th-berkeley-international