Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Refuting the Dragon


  • 8 days ago · Quote · #81

    ChessPatzer987

    TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:

    Maybe not refuted per se but why play the dragon when the Najdorf and Paulsen are superior?  

    Popularity and superiority are two different things. Don't confuse them.

  • 8 days ago · Quote · #82

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    pfren wrote:
    TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:

    Maybe not refuted per se but why play the dragon when the Najdorf and Paulsen are superior?  

    And your definition of superiority is... ?

    In the Paulsen it seems much harder for black to go wrong than in the Dragon.  There's a reason why Chess Stars made the Paulsen the subject of the Safest Sicilian.  The e6 pawn also covers d5 nicely and prepares a ...d5 thrust.  Even in bind positions can be prepared.  The Najdorf is superior because in the dragon black's d5 square is too weak while ...e6 in the dragon is oftentimes not viable due to weakening d6 too much.  

    In short black has fewer strategic problems in the Najdorf and Paulsen while white has a harder time against them while white has a relatively simple attackng plan of pry open the h-file and sac, sac mate against the dragon.  

  • 8 days ago · Quote · #83

    petrosianpupil

    it does seem to me that objectively the Najdorf and the Paulsen are stronger. But dragon players get a lot of practice against whites sac sac mate approach and a great queenside attack. I think as grades go up more players shift towards the more complex NaJdorf for that reason. so no mystery really. I think that The mystery for me is why Taimanov/Paulsen/kan lines aren't more common. I did notice Anands drift towards that direction, Giri and Svidler have had many fine wins with these ideas too.

  • 8 days ago · Quote · #84

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    There's some good stuff with the Paulsen.  One can set up a Hedgehog formation, capture away from the center in some cases (dxc6!) to contest a completely open d-file, play waiting moves and allow white to loosen himself, and has good transposition potential too.  

    Agreed that 2...e6 isn't nearly as popular as it logically should be, probably due to Fischer and Kasparov's great successes with the Najdorf overshadowing it, though Kasparov still has some Paulsen games.  

  • 7 days ago · Quote · #85

    samuelhaupt

    the dragon has no refutation and if it has you won't find it because even magnus Carlsen gas used it with success against very strong players. computers might find.something in a hundred years, but right now there is.no refutation it's a perfectly playable opening

  • 7 days ago · Quote · #86

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    It has no refutation but black seems to be putting all his eggs in one basket (the c-file) and other options seem safer, more flexible, and with more options.  On the long diagonal the bishop doesn't cover the d6 square and e7 can become backwards and weak if white times a Marco Hop correctly.  

  • 7 days ago · Quote · #87

    petrosianpupil

    I think that's a little harsh. Modern dragon players often give up the b pawn free of charge or chunk their a pawn down the board. But only a little harsh :)

  • 7 days ago · Quote · #88

    Jimmy720

    chessmicky wrote:

    When you're through "refuting" the Dragon, could you take a few moments to prove Fermat's last theorem and tell us the location of the Lost Dutchman gold mine?

    Fermat's Last Theorem was proven before I was even born...

  • 5 days ago · Quote · #89

    The_Almighty_J

    chessmicky wrote:

    When you're through "refuting" the Dragon, could you take a few moments to prove Fermat's last theorem and tell us the location of the Lost Dutchman gold mine?

    From one fellow Dragon player/fanatic to another...  You are proving his point as both of those "impossible" examples have been done.  So stop.  The Dragon is my life.  In a nutshell, I would smoke it if I could...

  • 2 days ago · Quote · #90

    D_for_DJ

    6

  • 31 hours ago · Quote · #91

    D_for_DJ


Back to Top

Post your reply: