Castle**
Accelerated Dragon with Queenside Castling??
Sort:
Jan 22, 2016
0
#44
pfren wrote:
Mysound wrote:
pfren wrote:
Mysound wrote:
leave the queenside castling to white in the accel.
and then attack the hell out of it it ;)
best part about playing the accell ^^
Huh? I'm afraid I don't get it.
The big idea behind the Accelerated Dragon is to make white castle kingside.
Precisely. I'm referring to the insubordinates who still try to 0-0-0 anyway, for ex. they play qd2 instead of 0-0, and then after ..d5! they try to 0-0-0,, or perhaps they play exd, or nxc6 ..bxc6 first and then try to queenside castle. black has a ton of fun sliding the the Q over to something like c7, Rb8, Bf5 and just basically pointing the entire arsenal at the white king.
This is of course not the sound way for white to play; they should go kingside castle as you mention. But when they don't it's a lotta fun ;)
White can play Bc4 and Bb3 before Qd2 and f2-f3, when Black either has to enter a regular Dragon (where white will catsle queenside), or try the speculative ...a5 line, which I have played myself as Black several times, but currently do not regard as completely adequate.
This is true, but only if black plays 7..0-0
7..Qa5 is known as the 'anti-yugoslav' variation I believe because it forces black to play 8.0-0
8.qd2? drops a pawn to to ..nxe4! 9.nxe4 ..qxd2 10qxd2 qxd2+ nxd4 or: 9nxc6 9..qxc3! and white is as good as done.
8.f3? fails to qb4
white can transpose to a normal dragon line after 8.0-0 ..0-0 9.Bb3 but that is the kingside attacking lines for white against the dragon which tend to be less fearsome imo.
I prefer the 7..qa5 lines over 7..0-0 followed by 8..a5 for these reasons. but it does seem like a lot of top GMs are playing the a5 lines lately with some fairly new ideas.
The one and only top GM who plays the Accelerated Dragon sporadically is Teimur Radjabov. Chucky too, although he has stopped using it since almost nine years ago.
Jan 22, 2016
0
#46
Robert_New_Alekhine wrote:
Aren't Camels rooks in some kind of chess set?
Were you referring to this:
Jan 22, 2016
0
#47
Theres a great game in the last cpl years where carlsen uses it and plays the ..a5 variation. actually ends up playing a5-a4-a3 and then posts a N on b2, was real interesting. I do think that was a rapid time control though. I'd have to dig it up.
I know i've seen it a cpl times in top tournament play in the last cpl yrs but its definitely not common. However, several players have used it as a transpositional move order into the regular dragon.
I'll try and dig some of these accelerated games up an d post them in this thread later on.
Jan 22, 2016
0
#48
I actually just found another game from the 2014 sinquefield cup where carlsen plays his accelerated dragon against caruana and this one is classical time control.
This is his one and only game on the A.D.
Actually he had a miraculous save from a totally lost position- he has even misplayed the opening (every second Acc. D. player does know that 10...a5?! is a mistake against 7.f3)
Jan 22, 2016
0
#50
Of course it's possible to win, but why play such a passive position when every advantage in the position is with white? It's not a lie to say that white should be confident playing against this setup.
Jan 22, 2016
0
#51
No it's not irrelevant. You have a better chance at winning vs a passive position than an active one. This is common sense. If you voluntarily go into a position with no counter play you can't think you have the same chances as your opponent at the given time.
I totally agree with lolurspammed.
Jengaias your statement defies common sense and logical sense
It is better to have an advantage than not to have an advantage.
In comparison to something more real life.
It is better to have 20 dollars than 5 dollars lol.
You are trying to agrue that the 5 dollars is better than the 20 dollars in this scenerio.
Furthermore, you are even making assumptions.
You assume a person with 20 dollars is going to lose or misplace the 20 dollars. Than you try to make that a valid agruement as to why they should be content with " 5 dollars".
Which I find really funny.
Jan 22, 2016
0
#54
To answer the OP, castling queenside in the dragon or acc. Dragon is illogical because you have no play anywhere else. Don't castle where your activity is going to be especially when your opponent is castled opposite wing.
jengaias wrote:
I am glad you are amused.You know what they say about stupid people.They find funny everything they don't understand.That means they are happy they laugh a lot.
Your example shows how little you understand about life.
Yes, having 5 dollars that you know what to do is better than having 20 that you don't.It is common sense.At least for anyone above average intelligence but since you are not I will give some explaining.
My job has to do with investment.2 years ago a guy invested 20.000 dollars and made 1.000.000 in a year(in the FOREX market).I have seen guys that have invested 50.000 and more and lost them in 2-3 months.
So here is my simple question:
If someone gives you 1.000 dollars and tells you that he will explain to you how the market works and you will be able to steadily increase them month after month and another one gives you 5.000 and tells you nothing, who would you choose?What your common sense tells you?Would you take the 5.000 and leave or the 1.000 that can become much more?
I will tell you one more thing that will make you laugh (because you can never understand it).
EVERYTHING in life has to do with understanding.EVERYTHING.The best bf/gf , the best husband/wife , the best family , the best job , the best car , the more money can do you no good if you don't know how to handle the difficult situations that will eventually occur.No advantage in chess or in life can do you any good if you lack the necessary understanding to exploit it.
Your metaphor lol is laughable.
Furthermore, your metaphor can be crushed easy.
I will do it with out hassle.
Your agruement is comparing a person who gives you 1 dollar who explains to you the stock market vs a person who gives you 5 dollars and doesn't explain to you the stock market.
In this fictious agruement your dollar amounts are not even realistic.
Instead I will use the sum 10,000 dollars intead of 1 dollar.
I will use 50,000 dollars intead of 5 dollars.
Now your corrected agruement is:
Comparing a person who gives you 10,000 dollar who explains to you the stock market vs a person who gives you 50,000 dollars and doesn't explain to you the stock market.
In this more realistic scenerio.
The dollar amount you should take is the "50,000".
The reason why is because even though the person giving you the money doesn't explain the stock to you.
You still have enough money to go searching for someone who is qualified.
You can spend up to 40,000 dollars searching for the right qualified person and still break even.
In honestly, You will not need to use up the whole 40k to find the right qualified person which means you will net most of those profits.
Your assumption that a person can give you 10,000 or even 1 dollar and explain to you the stock market is completely untrue.
Even if they magically explain it to you very well it still does not make you a qualified person.
This logic you are using does not surpise me one bit.
This is the same logic used by the new generation of kids these days.
They think because a person explains to them 1 thing they are an expert in that field.
These are delusions of grandeur nothing more.
Jan 23, 2016
0
#57
Arguement** Not "Agruement".
Please don t involve me.
**Runs back to den**
jengaias wrote:
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
jengaias wrote:
In honestly, You will not need to use up the whole 40k to find the right qualified person which means you will net most of those profits.
If you could find with 40.000 dollars the right person to make you a million then everyone that had 40.000 would be a millionaire.95% of the investors are losing money , 50% of them lose over 50.000 dollars and 20% of them over 100.000 dollars and they are losing them in less than 6 months.In FOREX market more than 5 TRILLION dollars are invested EVERY DAY.You the ignorant can find a way with 40.000 but they can't?Why don't you take a loan, be a millionaire and return it with interest smart guy?
The ultimate stupidity is talking about things that not only you don't know but you don't have even the average intelligence to understand.
You still do not get it do you.
You have no guarantee the guy giving you 10,000 will make you 1 million either!
You are making nothing, but assumptions.
In chess as well as in the market you have no guarantee.
If a person is stronger than you they will more than likely beat you no matter what line you play.
It is better to play a line where you obtained an advantage than lost the game.
vs
Playing a line where you never obtained anything other than a lost game.
Your statement people lose trillions is irrelevent to the situation.
The fact is if you have 50k cash vs 10k cash you have 5 more chance of being successful.
I don't think, this is good. The C-Line is open and white can attack easy. If you play Sicilian Dragon Opening, you should use Kingside Castling. But remember, that white can play Dd2, Le3 and Lh6 to change the Bishop. Good Luck with your opening ;)
Yeah, honestly. Impaler42 is clearly a guy who enjoys his chess, unlike some who just want a higher rating. If he likes openings, then by all means go study them! He just wanted your advice to see if you guys thought castling on the queenside was acceptable.
However, a word of warning to you, impaler42. Remember to study other things. As a rule of thumb, when you are low rated, use only 10% percent of your time studying openings. Also, the thing you should mostly be doing is UNDERSTANDING, not memorizing, as all should do.
That's my daily lecture boyz. I'm done
If you have a specific idea with 0-0-0, it MAY be good in some cases, but generally, 0-0-0 is nonsense.