So I was playing around with my chess set one time, and I stumbled upon a new opening line in the Sicilian Dragon I had never seen before: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Bg5.  White hopes to trade off their bishop for black's f6 knight, ripping black's e-pawn off its file and making the d-file full of pawn holes... a perfect home for white's knights.  Please write about what you think of this opening/ why I'm wrong and 6. Bg5 is a terrible move.

The problem comes in your second diagram. At the end of the diagram, Black can certainly play ...Na6 to defend the c7 square and thus save the rook. Even better though, instead of trading queens with Qxd1+, Black can play Nbd7 with a good position and a pawn.

I wouldn't say that Bg5 is unplayable, especially as a surprise weapon as it is fairly off-beat, but objectively it is not in the top class of options, and there are some off-beat lines with moves like f4 that provide better positions without going into the main lines

Looks impressive, maybe a computer can discover why Bg5 is a bad move?

This is the richter-rauzer attack a system origanally developed to avoid the dragon in the days before the yugoslav attack but has branched into it's own "famiiy" of the sicilian. I'm not sure if there is a move order that allows you to play a pure dragon against it if not it's just another mountain of theory to learn if you want to play the open sicilian.

The problem is that the move is simply premature. 6.Bg5 doesn't threaten anything, like it does after 5...Nc6 or even 5...a6. Black has played 5...g6, so now he can just play 6...Bg7, and white is not threatening anything but trading off the bishop pair. 6...e6 is not an important move in the dragon main lines, so black can tailor his play to the fact that white has committed his bishop to g5. The would-be critical 7.Qd2 is now not so difficult a puzzle for black since he has not castled, and can now just play 7...h6. Then, white plays 8.Bxf6, ceding the bishop pair and giving the powerful dragon bishop unchallenged access to the dark squares; drops back to e3 and white is in standard dragon territory and black doesn't have to waste a tempo on ...h6; or drops to h4, where his center will be less developed and less cohesive, and with the only compensation being a weak indirect pin on the knight. Or, black can just play 7...Nc6 and make his claim to the d4 square, leaving the misplaced bishop alone.

Bg5 is a standard move in the classical dragon, e.g. 6.Be2 Bg7  7.0-0 0-0  8.Bg5. In the classical dragon, the dragon bishop's diagonal is not such a battleground, so the contest for d4 is not so important. Also, black has already castled, so the plan of Qd2 is not so wayward.

The point, again, is that white commits his bishop to g5 too early. Black has not castled yet and has not completed his challenge to the center. Therefore, he can tailor his play to punish white's move order and have an easier game. This is not detrimental, of course, but in such a cutthroat line, a small inaccuracy like this can mean quite a different game.

~TO

friki wrote:

This is the richter-rauzer attack a system origanally developed to avoid the dragon in the days before the yugoslav attack but has branched into it's own "famiiy" of the sicilian.

The Richter-Rauzer is 5...Nc6  6.Bg5.

By the way as of it being a "new"idea it's been around since the 50's

tonight only this is the same system but just a different move order. Like i said origanally the system was meant to avoid the dragon but now crops up in all kins of move orders

friki wrote:

tonight only this is the same system but just a different move order. Like i said origanally the system was meant to avoid the dragon but now crops up in all kins of move orders

You are mistaken. The issue is not one of move order. The Richter-Rauzer is a response to the Classical Sicilian (2...d6 and 5...Nc6 or 2...Nc6 and 5...d6 in response to the open). In the classical, ...g6 is not played (or it will probably transpose into the Dragon), but instead ...e6 is played and the bishop is brought to e7. In other words, the Richter-Rauzer variation is part of the Classical Sicilian family of variations, which is a completely different group from the Dragon. Hope that helps.

~TO

TheJoKer-1s wrote:

Looks impressive, maybe a computer can discover why Bg5 is a bad move?

I think humans could do a much better job of figuring out why this is a bad move than a computer. A computer cannot think or reason. They are very good at finding moves because we have programmed them to use their superior calculating ability in just this way. I don't think any computer could explain to someone why a certain move in the opening works or doesn't.

your right The richter rauzer was used to avoid the dragon but in the days the dragon started in the classical move order. Sorry my bad. A caro kann player should'nt get involved in a sicilian discussion sorry

I find this link to be helpful for finding known games from particular positions.  I went there and Bg5 seems to do well for white (although not as well as you suppose) and is played from 1934 (or so) on.  The board is a little awkward at first but you will get the hang of it.  Get in your desired position, and hit the search button.

http://www.chesslive.de/ 

These positions are often useful OTB even if unsound as they are less analysed.