gewgaw wrote on 08/06/15 at 16:38:54:


If this is so, I must be doing something wrong, because I have been demolished as White in the Open Sicilians when I played 1. e4. Actually last time I played against the Dragon as White I was lost by move 22-23. Quite often I do not last more than 25 moves, so what is this about Black being under pressure in the Sicilian that you speak of?

But the Dragon seems like Black is fine I really think so. Same with basically all of the Sicilians. I am looking towards Jones book soon as this looks like the best way to get me into the Dragon.

Quote:


Well indeed. It wins. 

But also, just what's wrong with the Kan?

DenVerdsligeRejsende wrote on 08/06/15 at 02:24:52:


When I read your comment a question occurred to me: in which shape is the sicilian in general:
- classical: under pressure in the 6.Bg5 line - Rauser-attack for many years
- dragon: under pressure in many lines after 9.000, 9.Bc4 and even 9.g4 Be6 10.Nxe6
- scheveningen: under pressure after 6.g4 and even in the najdorf way 5. ...a6, 6. ...e6 the pressure increases, e.g. Wei Yi - Bruzon (?)
- taimanov with 5. ...Qc7 - afaik, the only sicilian in a good shape, I've played it for years and it still works fine
- najdorf: I was always eager to play it, but simply too much theory for an amateur like me, probably in good shape, too.
- sveshnikov: white found his way to play for just two results in the line 9.Nd5 10.Bxf6

Well I played before the Najdorf, Taimanow, and Kan. I do not study very much on the Kan because it is easy to update compared to the Najdorf. Najdorf I wanted to quit and switch it with the Dragon. This means I would play Taimanow, Dragon, and Kan. I was analysing my file on 6. Lg5 Sbd7 that I made over one year ago, some stuff playing around with Stockfisk and Houdini til move 55 trying to see if the rook endgame is equal. Then I wondered if this is even worth it because if I play the Najdorf someone will play 6. h3 and know at least 10 times as much there instead of 6. Lg5.

In my experience the Najdorf now til days seems like at least 20x more theory than the Dragon. I bet that 6. Lg5 takes up more theory than the entire Dragon

Hello.

Maybe there is need for an all encompassing thread on the Chinese dragon. For example "Chinese Dragon analysis and critical lines" (or whatever). I think it could grow quite nicely and other threads might be spared a lot of mostly non-topical Chinese dragon discussion.

Have a nice day.

Glenn Snow wrote on 08/04/15 at 22:01:18:


After spending some time analyzing the Chinese Dragon I haven't found any refutation too, but...

12. Bh6 line with a positional 14. Nd5 (after 13...b5) or a 14. Ndb5 (after 13...e5) gives White slight but stable advantage. Black's counterplay on the queenside is very limited. There is some play in the centre for Black but White has it under control.

So I'm asking myself a  question, why should I play the Chinese when in the main line Topalov variation (13. Nd5), where there is also the Dragon bishop absent and the play is on both flanks, Black has better counterplay based on a bad bishop on b3 and often exposed White king. I think that in mentioned positions in the Chinese the knight on a5 is placed not so good: it's blocking a7 pawn and if traded on b3, White has good shield against Black attacks; when the knight goes to c4 it is captured and the b-file seems not enough to compensate White's domination on the kingside and in the center.
The counterplay against the white bishop on b3 by pushing a & b pawns with knights traded on d4 is a lot easier for Black to achieve and gives them some reasonable initiative. Those positions in the Topalov are respected by the most recent Dragon sources: Vigorito's excellent theoretical update and even Pavlovic analysis that are done in the Cutting edge mostly from White side perspective.

I started playing the Chinese Dragon, because I was thrilled to sacrifice the pawn after "normal" 10. 0-0-0 Rb8 11. h4 b5!, but since that time White has found better way to combat against Black plans, taking the whole excitement with calm 11. Bb3 - 12. Bh6 - Nd5 sequence that is harmless in 10...Rc8 or 10...Nxd4 variations.

Having said that, I think that the Chinese Dragon is still playable alternative and White must be well prepared to mantain the initiative. If well prepared White is going to push with kingside and center play without serious risks on the queenside. It may be not enough for victory but White has most the of the fun on his side.

That's why I decide to move on. I'm ready to check the Carlsen variation now, to find out if it is any real alternative to the Topalov line. Thank you for finding those links to the existing analysis of 15. Qc1 and the main lines. When I find the road to equality for Black in the Carlsen line, I will share my findings with you.

Glenn and ArKheiN, thank you for the theory update. I will check the Chinese first as it is in my repertoire and share the results. I must admit that I didn't know both lines: 14. Ndb5 in the Chinese and 15. Qc1 in the Carlsen line. My break from chess was too long I suppose and some important changes happened.

I'm checking 13...b5 line in the Chinese (after 10. 0-0-0 Rb8 11. Bb3 Na5 12. Bh6 Bxh6 13. Qxh6), as I wasn't able to find satisfactory continuation after: 13...e5 14. Ndb5! Bxb5 15. Nxb5 Nxb3+ 16. axb3 Qa5 17. Na3 - White has kingside play where there are black squares holes, whilst Black is blocked on the queenside; d5 push weakens e5 pawn. White has definitely an initiative and seems to have slightly better chances as Black's counterplay is weak (stable +/=)

This link is not to one of my sites. I used to have Dragon site with several 100 of my own games but the free server I used sqreeved things up during server upgrade so it stopped to work and they failed to fix it so I killed my account there.