Leon_Trotsky wrote on 12/05/19 at 23:01:28:

Irrelevant. First of all a forum is rather an enlightened dictature (in the end GM Kosten decides and no one else). In the second place I do allow bickering; I don't allow bickering going off the raiils. And the personal attacks I removed, whether justified or not, totally qualify as such in my view.
If this discussion continues I'll move it to ChessPub.com Forum section.

BadDays wrote on 12/05/19 at 22:33:51:

This might need it's own thread as well.

BadDays wrote on 12/05/19 at 22:33:51:


Bickering is free speech though.

I mean, arguing on forums is mild. I read a few times that Kramnik and Topalow do not even shake hands when they play.

XChess1971 wrote on 12/05/19 at 02:04:28:

Okay, I agree. But you can expect only limited general comments from me, because I don't play this line with either color.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 12/04/19 at 23:23:26:


My friend I clearly stated that you need to do your homework. I have done mine. And I am doing a lot by telling you already where is the mistake and where are the better options.
That's the whole point. Like when I told Bragesjo that in one of the books he mentioned they gave a 17...h6?! instead of 17...Rb8! in the 14.Kb1 Re8 line. Or when I mentioned that the "Sicilian Dragon Move by move" Didn't mention the critical lines in the Burnett.
Now tell me would you spent hundreds of hours analyzing positions and then give it away to people? I guess that by telling you where are the better options I already did a lot.

Well put, MartinC. I was thinking along similar lines but didn't want to chime in for fear of offending anyone.

Somehow both halbstark and Ametanoitos had a strong reaction to XChess1971's post, where he listed 5 alternatives to 23...Nf4 and evaluated each, without further analysis. But I think they glossed over this part:

XChess1971 wrote on 11/30/19 at 15:25:47:

In other words, he analyzed deeper, but then carried the evaluations back to move 23 and truncated. It's a fair way to summarize as a first presentation. Maybe if someone disagreed with one of those candidates then it would be time to present the analysis of that candidate. Otherwise, analyzing five or six different moves might be unproductive. Black only needs one to start.

halbstark wrote on 12/02/19 at 16:46:12:


I guess is a matter of taste. So far not my preferred line. Maybe in the future I might change my idea. Nowadays computer has a big impact on chess. And it is played a different way. Years ago you wouldn't find "jokers" to say I analyzed this position up tp depth 45. Years ago you had to use your own brain. There were no PCs. It is a shame that people claim that they analyze very deeply. When in fact was Stockfish or some other program that analyze for them.
I belong to the old school where everything was played with your own head and no computers! And I moved into the US 19 years ago. Right when computers started to get a bigger impact on chess! Today I am American.

Pawnpusher wrote on 12/03/19 at 11:37:16:

+1!!

Ametanoitos it is good to see you posting again!! I missed reading your views and ideas about various chess matters.

XChess1971 wrote on 12/02/19 at 04:22:01:


Black is already equal. There is no slightly better with words. It has to be proven with analysis;)

I agree, that g5 is one of the critical tries against it. But I like the fact, that the positions sharpens up after the check on f6. I guess black is fine and the pawn on f6 can be a target if White is not careful

halbstark wrote on 12/01/19 at 13:36:57:


Black is already equal. There is no slightly better with words. It has to be proven with analysis. I do not have my laptop with me right now
. But on 17...Rd7 18.g5 doesn't appeal much to me. White gets a pawn in my position after the knight is traded on f6. I do not like the idea of giving my bishop either.

XChess1971 wrote on 11/30/19 at 15:25:47:


Thx for sharing your analysis. Nice to see, that there are still players, who admire the dragon as much as I do. I don´t have Shaws book. But I just compared the lines you gave with SF. 23...Nf4 seems to lead to lead to a small advantage for white at best. Which of your suggestions, do you consider best? 23...Qa6 24.Kb1 does also seem to be slightly better for white for example.

Overall I think black should have good chances in this Qh4-line in a practical game. I prefer 17...Rd7 btw to keep the tension. But I am not a correspondence player, so there might be the difference:)

Well they let AZ pick its favourite openings and it seemed to end up with quite a stylistic preference to playing with fixed centers

There's a game in Game Changer where they forced it to play Chatard Alekhine (as black) and it tried to be too active too fast and got firmly splattered by Stockfish. A few games where it did very well as white.

I can't remember any Sicillian games from either side.

One greatly amusing Pirc where it got made to play the Na6 Austrian, decided its position was not very good and randomly ditched a pawn. Still drew that one

bragesjo wrote on 02/17/19 at 12:35:20:


Thx bragesjo,

I remember vaguely a big thread about 9.000 d5 with 14.Ne4 and at some point ....Qb7, where Black actually never equalised, so it seems some refinements in some lines, but nothing really new. Did alphazero play the dragon?

If I am to give an theoretical recommedantins, Jones books are the best books for black, I am even mentioned in them in at least 2 lines. Negis book for white is also helpfull for both sides where the books met.

For black vs Bc4 yugoslav I would recommended Topalovs Rc8 Nxd4 b5 system unless white plays h4 before 0-0-0 then I would recommend  h5 and Soltis variation.

For black vs 9 0-0-0 i would recommend d5.
If 10 Kb1 I recommend Nxd4 e5 Nf5 exf6 exf6 system.
If 12 Bd4 lines I would recommend  Bxd4 Qxd4 Qb6 Na4 Qc7. I might not the most fun line to play but I think the position is balanced, it apperas to be  some hidden dynamic elemetns for black in the postion that compensated the worse pawn structure
If 10 Qe1 line I recommened e5, particaully since the trendy 14 Kb1 is not much to have for white since the position leads to very forced play after a5!! h4 Qc7!.

g4 Yugoslav I would recommend Be6.

For white I would recommend 9 0-0-0 yugoslav meeting d5 with Qe1 and play like Shaws book and thus playng  the old mainline with 14 Ne4 insted of the trendy 14 Kb1 in e5 line.

Hi.

I too find this interesting and would like to thank mr. Bragesjo for  taking the time to note his experiences.

For what it is worth. In terms of Sicilians the Dragon is the only one that I've ever truly felt like playing. Maybe I will give it a go at some point.

Have a nice day.

The tournament did not go the way I was hoping for. I only won an a single game but I did not lose any games but did not reach semifinal.
The positive side is that I played 2 draws vs a corr SIM (corr title, over IM but bellow GM) who won the event. I will not post any complete games here or give any names since they are secret to public accordning to tournamnet rules.

I have looked at the other players games since they are viewable after completion in this event since it was large event. Many opponnets often played different systems with both sides in every game and sometimes the lower placed players played total craplines in some games, ending up worse quickly and losing including with white, while I met no bad lines. In a few cases they entered playable but ultra sharp mainlines (but not theory recommendations) even as white and losing quickly when out of book some move later.  I will not post any examples of lines of either category.

But there was also a number of games when it was clear that one side was the better player and there was not opening mistakes involed but it is also still impossible to tell if it would have effected the tournament result if they played that line vs me instead of vs some other player and the opposote. I played the same systems in every game with both sides if given the chance. I belive they played more critical against me since I did not have corr elo when the event started since, but I have it today, since I am new to corr and mainly plays unrated thematical events.

But I am actually happy that I did not reach semi since I now gets more time to focus on other events, I entered without warning both a Najdorf final and a Petroff final that I had not planned for so a Dragon semi would have meant that I would drown in games since I also play rated events too like team matches and rated tournaments and also other unrated thematical events. The event also cleary showed that I need to improve my white repertour vs Dragon. As white I played to weak and tried to win the positional way by playing the Be3 Be2 0-0-0 Yugoslav like variation in every game, where I tried to get the slighty more comfortable endgame after

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.Be2 Nc6 8.Qd2 O-O 9.O-O-O Ng4 10.Bxg4 Bxg4 11.f3 Bd7 12.Kb1 Ne5 13.b3 Re8 14.h4 Qa5 15.h5 Rac8  16.Nd5 Qxd2 17.Rxd2

I have been succefull with it in many over the board games, including vs heigher rated. But in corr chess black easely found the correct moves and held the draw, particullary in 2 games where I messed up my move order later. I will not play this line with white anymore thats for certain, at least not in corr.

As black I played the safest mainlines I knew of and all games became draws. I met varius lines in almost every game, including a rare Be2 setup with a quick Re1 in one game. The funny side was that in one of the black games I played a sound queen sacrifice at move 17 but it lead to a draw at move 26. It was the first time ever I sacrificed my queen in a corr game.
 
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 O-O 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.O-O-O d5 10.Kb1 Nxd4 11.e5 Nf5 12.exf6 exf6 13.Nxd5 Nxe3 14.Qxe3 Be6 15.Bc4 f5 16.c3 Re8 17.Nf4 Bxc4 18.Rxd8 Raxd8

Vs Bc4 yugoslav I went for Topalov varition where I met h4 twice and played this 19 .. Rc5 via 2 move orders and sacrificed exchange for good compensation at move 21 reaching comfortable draws. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 O-O 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.O-O-O Rc8 11.Bb3 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 b5 13.h4 a5 14.h5 a4 15.Bxf6 exf6 16.Bd5 b4 17.hxg6 hxg6 18.Ne2 f5 19.Nd4 Rc5 20.Kb1 Qc7 21.Qg5 Rxd5 22.exd5 b3 In in one of these games I even sacrificed the exchange again at move 28.

Vs 9 0-0-0 I played d5 and in 
a .12 Bd4 line I played Bxd4 Bxd4 Qb6 Na4 Qc7 and nothing interesting happened for both sides, we followed a ultimate mainline very long and than took a draw.
b. 10 Qe1 I played e5 where met the trendy 14 Kb1 and played 14 .. a5! that I found at some other forum quating some corr games and dont think white has anything special at all. The idea is 15 h4 Qc7! Shaws book agreed on this for but it was not out until far ahead into the event so no player had that book as help. Shaw does by the way proposed old main line 14 Ne4 instead. I met the latest Stockfish top suggested improvment over the corr games but white still did not get anything anyway disspite that opponent was rated over 2300 (but still an untitled player). In one game in the opponent who played this system as white met 14 .. Re8!? and black even won that game and in one game 14 .. Rb8 became a draw and 14 .. Qd7 lead to a draw too.
c. Kb1 Nxd4 e5 Nf5 exf6 exf6.

My conclusion of this event is that the Dragon is in excellent shape in corr chess if one knows theory and plays the right subvariations.