Accelerated Dragon

I totally disagree that you should play the Dragon before the accelerated dragon - the dragon is much more tactical and the accelerated dragon more positional.  Don't worry about the Maroczy bind if you play the openning thematically correct against white the bind is nothing to be worried about.  I suggest you buy Andrew Greet's book on it.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with every point you've made in this post.

Well, I don't think anyone under 2000 FIDE should play the Sicilian at all, but I'm not going to attack someone for wanting to try it. I do think some understanding of the Dragon is helpful for someone who wants to play the Accelerated Dragon, and that a lot of people play the Dragon because it 'sounds cool' or Accelerated Dragon because Dzindzichashvili recommends it...

Truth be told, you will probably lose 90+% of your games against higher-rated opposition playing any Sicilian, and given the amount of ideas they can use against you, you can't expect to understand all of them. Whenever anyone under 2200 plays the Sicilian against me in an over-the-board tournament, I breathe a sigh of relief and can almost mark up the 1-0 on the scoresheet already, because I know they A)don't understand it well, B)will be unfamiliar with the ideas I have practiced against the Sicilian, or even if they aren't, will not know the lines out to move 20+, with the only moves to survive without a terrible position, and C) are probably stunting their chess development by playing the Sicilian prematurely.

I don't understand the Sicilian well enough to play it. I'm just an Expert. I wouldn't dream to say I could play the Sicilian.

That being said, if you want to try it, go right ahead. You have been warned. The Accelerated Dragon is not an aggressive try for a win as Black, nor does it have to be. But it is very, very difficult to play for a win against the Maroczy Bind. Your dream position is to trade off your bishops for White's Knights, trade off White's darksquare bishop, and throw a Knight on d4 with a pawn on e5. If you can achieve this goal, you should have a significant endgame advantage with good Knight vs bad Bishop. Otherwise, Rook endings (if all minor pieces come off) strongly favor White.

Studying openings that you have to learn a lot of lines in is, in my opinion, not advisable for players under Expert level, and probably not well-advised for players below Master level. Learn something simple, or learn a little bit about a lot of different types of positions. Learning to play different types of positions, learning tactics, and learning basic endgames is more than sufficient to reach 2000+. Knowledge of specific openings, while it can occasionally be helpful, is unnecessary, and the results you achieve will not translate directly to rating points, victories, or good results in tournaments as quickly as knowledge in the three areas I listed above (tactics, basic endgames, and learning how to play a variety of positions).

Not played a lot of Maroczys, but studied it pretty deeply with opening explorer on 365chess.com and studied some games.  Not that hard.

My bad.  Thanks.

I don't believe that you can get a lot of knowledge about the themes and ideas of the maroczy just by looking at lines with opening explorer or 365chess.com. Perhaps you should consider looking at Starting Out: Sicilian Accelerated Dragon from Andrew Greet.

Not just 365chess.com, but also studied many games.  I don't need an openings book.  Its not necessary.

You decide but a opening book is fundamental when learning a new opening because it explains the ideas and themes...and the starting out ones are excellent for that.

I agree, as I mentioned in my earlier post the Greet book is excellent and explains the themes really well.

That's quite a lot of discussion about whether someone should or should not learn a chess opening.It sounds logical to learn about the idea of a system before going deeper into variations, like the accelerated dragon.
Whether a player should or should not learn an opening in such a way depends on the person, his or her ambitions/expectations with the opening.

Personally I play a new opening or variation by just copying the first few moves and see how it "feels". If I'm interested, I look further into the why and how. Not very professional, but effective enough for a player of my caliber.

ps. I think the constructive version of this thread would've been a much more interesting one.

I will said first learn the ideas behind all the Sicilian lines,pawn structure,middle game ideas and what end game you will get in any position, after that choose the Sicilian you like more and then start to study the theory and opening novelty's. I'm in the first part. But You can't run the marathon if you don't know how to run.

Once you follow the steps I have outlined in learning endgames, tactics, and expanding your understanding of different positions, a good way to learn an opening is to start by examining the typical endgames that can come out of it. I gave two examples relevant to the Accelerated Dragon. Some opening books are structured in this way. One example I can think of off the top of my head is How to Beat the French Defense by Andreas Tzermiadianos. It is an excellent book, although anyone rated under 1900 or so is unlikely to derive much benefit as the lines are very deep and only lead to small advantages in the important positions. However, the book suits my style very well in that it gives very concrete routes to a win against inferior lines and lines in which Black must know the theory to survive.

It's harder to do this for the Black side as White's choices are not forced. Against the Sicilian, White has a huge variety of moves to choose even at move 2, and a large array of possible plans in the Open Sicilian as well. However, in the Accelerated Dragon complex, there are some positional themes that are based on having chances in the endgame (exchanging dark-squared bishops when possible and creating an outpost on d4 for the Knight in the Maroczy as I described above). That being said, if you can't convert the endgame, getting this type of advantage is not meaningful. If you can, and your opponent doesn't understand the position, they are very likely to plod on with Qd2, Bh6, and be surprised when you not only allow but welcome a trade of dark-square Bishops, and don't realize what's going on until they're in an endgame with pawns on c4 and e4 and a Bishop on e2 against a monstrosity of a Knight on d4.

Move the c-pawn to e5, the e6-pawn to d6, and the g7-pawn to g6 and you have a classic Maroczy ending that is winning for Black.

A good introduction on how to play both sides of the Maroczy Bind Pawn Structure in the Accelerated Dragon can be found on pages 142-146 of "Pawn Power In Chess", by Hans Kmoch.

The 6.Nc3 lines fall under Jump Formation Pawn Structures.  The diagram for the generic Jump Formation can be found on page 108.  The detailed explanation on how to play both sides of a variety of Jump formatioms is covered on pages 117-135.

In my opinion what really makes it worth to own this book is his enlightening perspective regarding almost every opening. In his book on page 107, Mr Kmoch writes, "...During the brief initial stage of the game, the pawn formation normally assumes suficient character to be classified under one of the following headings..."  What becomes evident is that Mr. Kmoch is saying that almost all openings result in one of 6 characterisitic pawn structures.  He proceeds in pages 108 thru 173 to explain in enlightening detail how to handle all 6 pawn structures from both sides. 

If you would like more detail, please let me know.

Regarding the Starting Out book, does it cover the Ng4 lines of the Maroczy, the plan of minor piece advantage with an early Nxd4, or both?

Also, what does it suggest in the lines of 5. Nc3?  Thanks.

Yes, it does discuss the 7. ...Ng4 line and also the Nc3 line (a number of variations are given).  If you are going to play the accelerated dragon I'd suggest you get the book - it's very good.

Alright, thanks for your help.

As always my standing challenge to you is, I am vacationing in Florida for the next 2 months.  Please post the time, date and place in Florida that you would like to meet for a face to face over the board theoretical discussion with me.  In order to document our match of say best 5 of 7 games I will gladly contact USCF Officials so that the match can be arranged and documented of record.

If you post another way of chickening out of an official USCF OTB Match I will post the text of how you chckened out of a challenge from me in another topic in this forum a few months ago.

I am a member in good standing with USCF.  Are you? 

 The guy who did the most to unravel the Maroczy bind was Larsen who was just beginning in 1959.

I would agree with you if your were right.  I will quote to you from "Pawn Power in Chess", On page 143 Mr. Kmoch writes, "...Another line of play, designed to take advantage of the slight melanpenia (dark square weakness)  of the Maroczy Bind, runs as follows:  6...Nf6; 7.Nc3 Ng4; 8.Qxg4 Nxd4; 9.Qd1 with two possibilities (a)9...e5, as in Smyslov-Botvinnik, Alekhine Memorial tournament, Moscow 1956 (b)9...Ne6, as in Glirgorich-Larsen, Dallas 1957.  Niether of these games is convincing.  Black's general idea is questionable..." A little earlier on page 143 Mr Kmoch points out, "...However, the Maroczy bind has ...a drawback, as the Russian analyst Symagin has recently pointed out.  The move 5.c4 delays the development of White's pieces, of which Black can take advantage by getting in ...f5-the lever for which there is otherwise very little chance.  Symagin's system requres ...g6 and ...Nh6..."

I met GM Bent Larsen in person at the San Antonio Chess Club in 1972.  I spoke with him regarding IM Ken Smith's new anti-Sicilian weapon the Smith-Morra Gambit (Accepted and Declined)  Mr. Larsen was in San Antonio to participate in the Church's Fried Chicken International Chess Tournament that year.  He indicated to me a preference of declining the Gambit after 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 with 3...d3 and inviting White to establish the Maroczy Bind pawn structure after 4.c4.  If my recollection is accurate he did employ that strategy in his game against Ken Smith and drew.  GM Larry Evans, in defeating Ken Smith in his game against him in the Smith-Morra Gambit Accepted, demonstrated convincingly to Mr. Smith that his new anti-Sicilian opening was not the strong weapon he claimed it to be. Even Larsen in his notes to a game from the tournament , quipped to Black's move 1...e5 ('wrong, play 1...c5 win a pawn')  But Larsen's system of inviting White to establish the Maroczy Bind, by declining the gambitted pawn and attempting to exploit White's slight dark square weakness in the Maroczy Bind  pawn structure is clearly not the best defensive system, against the Smith-Morra.

the referenced pages in Pawn Power are about the queue method of opening a file and initiating an attack, not about playing against the Maroczy bind.

You will notice that my post references pages 142-146 of Mr. Kmoch's, "Pawn Power In Chess" book.  The queue method that you reference is discussed under a completely different section on pages 163-170.  Please read carefully it helps when discussing issues in this forum. 

I love the idea of travelling a few thousand miles to prove superiority on a online chess forum.

Florida?  What are the stakes to get me to travel to Florida?

PRIZE FUND: $2,000 (1/2 from each participant + USCF FEE and Match Director Fee/certified funds(cash, cashiers check or money order to be deposited with licensed and bonded Florida Agent.

USCF MATCH RULES AND REGULATIONS WILL APPLY-- match director rulings in all matters concerning this match shall be final

Time Control:  40 moves 2 1/2 hrs. 20 moves/hr. thereafter until conclusion of game

Match games-- best 5 of 7 games.  First player to 5 points wins the match.  In case of tie fundws on deposit will be reimbursed to each participant 50/50

Each participant to absorb his own costs to, during, and after the match