Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Help with the dragon


  • 24 months ago · Quote · #41

    bishopson

    jetfighter, don't worry, if you study hard, you'll get to understand all the theory.  In my opinion, I think Alekhine was the greatest.  He saw deeper tactically than any other chessplayer ever, and he took knowingly inferior opening positions, because he saw something deep in the position that would be to his advantage.

    pfren, you are probably right about Dzindzi's current analysis.  Right now, over the last couple of years, I've lost now OTB games with the Accelerated Dragon, and I've won a lot with, I believe, one draw.  It probably puts me at well over 90% success rate.  Quite interestingly, though, I've not run into the Maroczy Bind in OTB play.  Maybe because it's so complex and too much for most weekend warriors to learn.  I find it interesting you mention the Lowenthal.  I have a book, written by the late Ken Smith on the Lowenthal dating in the late 1980's.  I worked on it, but never got to use it because everyone I played in OTB played 1. d4.  Maybe I should dig it out and brush up on it, but I wonder how much theory on it has changed over the last 20 to 25 years.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #42

    jetfighter13

    thanks. that is very encouraging, anyway, back to the pressing issue. how do you handle the mainline yugoslav attack after 9. 0-0-0, because I figure, if I play it, I may as well know how to play it.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #43

    Estragon

    bishopson wrote:

    jetfighter, don't worry, if you study hard, you'll get to understand all the theory.  In my opinion, I think Alekhine was the greatest.  He saw deeper tactically than any other chessplayer ever, and he took knowingly inferior opening positions, because he saw something deep in the position that would be to his advantage.

    pfren, you are probably right about Dzindzi's current analysis.  Right now, over the last couple of years, I've lost now OTB games with the Accelerated Dragon, and I've won a lot with, I believe, one draw.  It probably puts me at well over 90% success rate.  Quite interestingly, though, I've not run into the Maroczy Bind in OTB play.  Maybe because it's so complex and too much for most weekend warriors to learn.  I find it interesting you mention the Lowenthal.  I have a book, written by the late Ken Smith on the Lowenthal dating in the late 1980's.  I worked on it, but never got to use it because everyone I played in OTB played 1. d4.  Maybe I should dig it out and brush up on it, but I wonder how much theory on it has changed over the last 20 to 25 years.

     

    There have been some tries in the Lowenthal, but it isn't as if it was ever popular, so the best route might be to filter a database for it, and make a new database out of the results.  Use master games to eliminate some silly moves.  That should give you ample for study - practice is nearly always more reliable than opening books or DVDs, authors tend to allow their emotions, opinions, and even the purpose of the book to influence their judgements on various positions.

    I keep a "current" database of about 100,000 master games going back to 2006, updated regularly.  There are just over 300 Lowenthal and Kalishnikov games in that, less than 1% of the total, but the stats show White with a 52% score, about what he scores against the overall Sicilian, and the Schevengingen and Nadjorf defenses (55% vs the Dragon).  With that many games and roughly balanced ratings for White and Black on average, there can't really be anything awful about it.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #46

    OneEyedMonk

    IceBreaker95 wrote:

    @jetfighter, 9. 0-0-0 is not Yugoslav attack...

     

    Yes it is.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #47

    antonisf

    OneEyedMonk wrote:
    IceBreaker95 wrote:

    @jetfighter, 9. 0-0-0 is not Yugoslav attack...

     

    Yes it is.

    indeed, the way i understand it everything after Be3 and f3 is Yugo, just different subsystems.

    :-)

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #48

    antonisf

    jetfighter13 wrote:

     

    anyway. are you sure fischer was best, I happen to like either Kaspy simply because of his overall skill, and that he maintained his sanity, and Morphy, just because he is a better role model for people.

    Lol, Kasparov is not even in my top 5. You have to remember thougb that list like these are very subjective. 

    :-)

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #50

    OneEyedMonk

    Be rather like saying the Breyer and Zaitsev aren't Closed Lopezes because they aren't the Chigorin.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #51

    OneEyedMonk

    pfren wrote:

    It's just opening nomenclature, why bother?

    I also call non-Bc4 systems "Yugoslav Attack" but the label is of no real significance. What is true is that the nature of the Bc4 systems is very different from the Konstantinopolsky Gambit (9.0-0-0 d5), and the currently popular 9.g4 system is also very different from the other two.

    Nomenclature is everything.  Take the Dragon itself.  This opening is only borderline respectable in the first place.  If it were called the Tax Attorney variation, nobody would play the thing.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #52

    CHCL

    antonisf wrote:
    jetfighter13 wrote:

     

    anyway. are you sure fischer was best, I happen to like either Kaspy simply because of his overall skill, and that he maintained his sanity, and Morphy, just because he is a better role model for people.

    Lol, Kasparov is not even in my top 5. You have to remember thougb that list like these are very subjective. 

    :-)

    @ antinosf, Fischer and Kasparov were super players, the best of their times. Then who are your top 5 players??

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #53

    antonisf

    OneEyedMonk wrote:

      If it were called the Tax Attorney variation, nobody would play the thing.

    LOL, thats so true!

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #54

    jetfighter13

    lol to the Tax Attorney variation. I think after f3 it is a Yugoslav. then there are the subsystems. But honestly I don't care about the names

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #55

    CHCL

    antonisf wrote:
    OneEyedMonk wrote:

      If it were called the Tax Attorney variation, nobody would play the thing.

    LOL, thats so true!

    I totally agree!!!

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #56

    antonisf

    CHCL wrote:
    antonisf wrote:
    jetfighter13 wrote:

     

    anyway. are you sure fischer was best, I happen to like either Kaspy simply because of his overall skill, and that he maintained his sanity, and Morphy, just because he is a better role model for people.

    Lol, Kasparov is not even in my top 5. You have to remember thougb that list like these are very subjective. 

    :-)

    @ antinosf, Fischer and Kasparov were super players, the best of their times. Then who are your top 5 players??

    Fischer is my top (for singlehandedly defeating the entire soviet chess machine amongst many other things)

    Korchnoi second for playing top class chess even though he is 127 years old

    Karpov for his style.

    Lasker (yes i am aware of the irony of placing fischer and lasker in the same list, after all it was fischer who called lasker a coffee house player) for understanding that chess is not a game you play only on the chessboard.

    and 

    Pillsbury, for was it not for the hookers and drink the guy would have been bigger than capablanca.

     

    again, as i said before lists are subjective and what i found profound in some player others may find it laughable.

     

    :)

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #57

    jetfighter13

     my list with explanations

    Morphy: Defeating every notable player in the world at his time in a two year span. Simple but effective play, first modern player.

    Kasparov: player who dominated the game for an extremely long amount of time. He beat the machine the time it counted.

    Tal: Beat Kasparov in his last month on earth, hard to equal something like that, especially when it was durring the highth of Kaspy's Carrer. Most complicated style, never know where the next blow would come from.

    Fischer: Single handedly beat the soviet Chess machine, brought chess front page news coverage in the US (the cold war was a big deal, especialy when we beat the Soviets)

    Carlsen: for bringing chess back to the forfront of American media since Fischer ( Colbert report, 60 Minutes) and for being a great player with a decent personality.

    thats it.


Back to Top

Post your reply: