Dragon Defence

Unless the advantage can be systematically converted

I didn't know this. But I never put Bishop on c4, I always put it on e2 and keep it to help g and h pawn in attacking black castle.

Thanks for the forum topic Peachter, whilst the illustrated openings in posts one and nineteen contain errors this would not diminish the Dragons reputation as the most uncompromising of Sicilian variations & I would advocate its use by reason of what I believe is an unsurpassed combination of tactical opportunity and positional themes.

Thank You

John Boy

Though I hope my KID doesn't turn out refuted, I wouldn't be suprised if that dragon analysis is biased. They're not confident with the line, so people search for solutions ultra deep and claim any new tactic proof of its life. but usually it just gets refuted and it keeps on going. Those openings may not be meant to live but solutions are constantly being searched for. It's like that time where the taimanov variaiton basically refuted the benoni (or at least forced an awkward move for black making it hard to equalize) but new tactics were always found for the benoni nerds but the new moves usually didn't work out under closer examination but they didn't want the opening to be unsound. But even if those openings are unsound, the player of the white pieces probably has to go over all of those tries to move 30 trying to prove the opening is still alive against those determined players!

I personally think there is a refutation, becuase in the dragon where kings are castled on opposite sides with best play probably one side will achieve their goal first. White's attack looks faster so he will probably be the first one done if he plays the best moves no matter what black plays.

Are engine evaluations usually wrong in the winawer? I hope so!

That is so wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 Yeah, I was operating on preextisting theory and had figured out that White has a definite advantage.  Then, when I looked on chesspub, a new line had emerged that I had analyzed, but picked some wrong follow-ups.  The Dragon is not refuted, but if Black doesn't know the cutting edge theory, he will surely die.

Not sure if this has been said yet, but after black plays Rc8, white needs to play Bb3 to avoid the attack...

I believe that the h4 variation is the Soltis Variation in the Sicilian.

BTW if you guys are interested, I actually posted an article about the Sicilian Dragon. I am not an expert or anything, I just read some stuff on it and shared it here. Anyway, look for it if you want to see the Dragon in play. The article title...

Ideas behind the Sicilian Dragon

Here's the link:

http://www.chess.com/article/view/ideas-behind-the-sicilian-dragon

I like to hear that. When I make fritz analyse positions in the winawer it always likes white alot and it recomends lines never played by GMs (like not taking the pawn after ...f5 and just moving the queen, claiming big advantage for white  even though exf6 is almost always done). I thought it was the computer refuting the Winawer, and human analysis says it's ok. But I have Play the French, which is good but probably biased for black and maybe theory has evolved on the line I play in the last few years. In a way I'm just like those dragon players, hoping that my favorite variaiton is sound! But I really do think the winawer is sound in the main line 7 Qg4 0-0, not ...Qc7.

Great post Richie and Oprah... and I totally agree.  I rarely use the word refuted for that reason (unless we're talking double danish :P) ... 'Rightfully Unpopular' works though :P .  As both the Dragon and the KID are to some degree at the very top.

Just curious: What's the point of Kb1? I see this move in many dragon lines, but I don't understand why it's so important.

Yeah, it totally depends on who's in the process of smashing it at the top :P.  Relying on superGM analysis to build our opening repertoire lets us (me? :P) be lazy.

But heck... one particular correspondence master I know played the Halloween Gambit vs. a 2600GM!!! (crazy game by the way...)

The Chinese Dragon IS on the upswing, but the consensus is that White keeps a slight edge.  For example, in the Ncxb5 line, White can play Na3! and keep the edge.

wow

Even GM's in correspondence are afraid to prove an opening wrong? The computer says that black has a 1.0 advantage, which of course is decisive but white did have a nice pawn of compensation but he had to give quite a bit. I don't understand why a GM would give back the material though; isn't he good enough to win against it? And sacrifices in general in GM middlegames I think are too often declined. It annoys me because they must know that taking is usually best but they are too afraid!

Looking around, I found an

article on the web by IM Andrew Martin, claiming the Qa5 Dragon refuted. Since Winning with the Sicilian Dragon 2 - Chris Ward recommends 10...Qa5, I was quite eager to see Mr Martin's refutation... 

From the position at the end of the sequence of moves on the left, I now switch sources, consulting Chris Ward's Winning with the Sicilian Dragon 2. Let's see what Chris had to say about 13.Bg5.

'A positional move which I occassionally see recommended, though, as far as I can make out, with little justification', Chris says. To be fair, Mr Martin's document is of the more recent, published in 2005, while Mr Ward's book was published in 2001/2002.

After 13.Bg5, the game continued 13...Nc4. Chris Ward suggested Rc5, and luckily, Mr Martin does mention Rc5 in the comments.

13.Bg5 Rc5 14.Rhe1 (Ward & Martin) b5 15.Bxf6 (Ward & Martin) exf6!? 16.Nd5 (Martin) Qd8!?

Andrew only considered 16...Qxd2 17.Rxd2 + - .

17.f4 a5!? runs Chris's analysis which he considers black to be fine after a lengthy few more moves. I won't give you the rest of Ward's analysis (for the safety of one's life when considering how many angry people there are out there who is trying to reach me through their computer screen because I did not put a diagram or two!).

Mr Martin, after 13...Rc5, believed that 14.h4! was also strong (again, Andrew's impression mark). This time, I am really on my own with no Chris Ward beside me to help. Perhaps someone would like to continue the analaysis on 14.h4! ?

If you tire of the yugoslav attack against the dragon , as white, try the Levenfish attack. It scores about the same % according to my database.

sehg