Qa5 Dragon, REFUTED!

That is right kids, I usually see nubs playing weird Qa5 lines instead of serious things like the Topalov.

This Qa5 lines are specially common in the real Yugoslav Attack with 9.Bc4 (9.g4 and 9. 0-0-0 are jokes) and seem to be non-sense, specially in the BRAVE 12.Kb1 lines. I dont think I have to say they are also specially common in cheap blitz games.

Here is the line and here is what I think refutes it.

BABE, A PIG IN THE CITY OUT BRAHS!!!

You give me the a7-pawn or you get mated with Ng3.

People seem to like giving up pawns to get a fake initiative just to lose a losing endgame.

That means the main move after Ne2 is Be6 and is also BUSTED!!!

Qc7 in this position would be I think equally horrible in view of g5-Nd5.

The only move there is b5 which has survived attempts or a refutal in the exchange sac line.

However Negi suggested an interesting line with 15.h4 instead of the exchange sac which happens after 15.b3 b4.

However the publisher is trash and will not allow me to buy an e-book that I can see in my computer, only in my Android Phone so I cant have access to it.

I dont think I should be worried tho, if I ever went to play the dragon I can only expect cheaps 9. 0-0-0

After looking at more depth in the database seems like Qa5 is completely busted in all lines.

Statistics lied to me, games drawn or lost were because White played like trash.

You've got the moves all wrong. This is the real Qa5 Dragon line. Looks like you mixed up two different Dragon lines and attempted to combine them together in the worst possible order.

No, I didnt got the move order wrongly, I shared a line I faced before.

Anyways, that Qa5 line is also busted, sorry.

And if anyone tells you differently then they are noobs.

You asked for it dud, here it comes, TRAIN RIGHT INTO BUBBLE BURST LAND.

The problem with this Qa5 moves is that they do not bring enough counterplay on the queenside or that they do not do something to stop the kingside expansion like the Soltis lines do. They just ignore it, get kicked, and then after g4 the d5 square hurts bad together with the h5 thread which is just mate.

I got the moves I posted from a very well-recognized source, from the book Winning with the Dragon by GM Chris Ward. I can critique your so-called "refutation" with the help of my trusty chess engine (which should be able to help verify this).

LOL.

Winning with the Dragon is not an authority dud.

Go ahead.

If you ask to any dragon expert he will tell you that Qa5 trash is refuted and that Black's only try against the Bc4 Yugoslav from a theoritical standpoint are the exchange Sac line, the Topalov, or even the Chinese Dragon.

The author is a Grandmaster, not an 1800 patzer like yourself (relative to GMs and engines, that is).

The fact that he is a grandmaster does not mean what he says is true, you should verify and do your own research, specially in this type of openings.

This is 2016, "patzers" like me can use an engine correctly, "patzers" like me can consult actual opening books and "patzers" like me can definitely refute lines!

Here are the statistics for your Qa5 line, I dont even know them completely and can bet they are all busted.

(the database I consulted is all of the ICCF archives from 2004 to 2015 put together in a giant database)

Hey gchess, Im waiting for your refutation to my refutation, I hope you can find it quickly as I am biting my fingers out of anxiety, lolo.

Obviously you haven't analyzed the line for long enough, because it takes a lot of time to search at the depth necessary to actually refute a line. Sure, you came up with #1 choices, but it was only at a depth of 20 ply (I replicated the results you got at that depth). This is far too shallow of an analysis. It is not hard to believe that in a very sharp position Black would come out worse in a very limited search depth.

Getting the popcorn out

Hmmm...this is interesting. On a depth of 25 ply Stockfish prefers 11...Ne5 (+0.34) over the third choice 11...Rfc8 (+0.46).

Lol.

Show me the lines, where can Black improve his play?

I got my hands on the version 2 of that book and all he does is avoid this critical line, I never saw him covering this line. He just blinds readers by showing stupid 13.h5 lines (for the most part) and commentates very little on a Nb3 line which isnt even on the critical position.

Ill post a line out of the ICCF database (centaur chess) and you will try and leave Black OK.

Mmm, this is interesting 11...Rfc8 and 11...Ne5 will transpose.

Is this how you plan to use your engine to refute this lines? Lol at you.