Qa5 Dragon, REFUTED!

I never said what the engine will play after 11...Ne5. Looking at its laid out move sequence right now, it plans nothing of the sort. Posting one single really specific line from a database which is based on actual games, not computer-generated theory, is a silly way to try to refute a whole variation such as the Qa5 Dragon.

ARE YOU A RETARD?
DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THE HELL THE ICCF IS?
INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENCE CHESS FEDERATION, KID THATS IT.

And guess what, THEY ALLOW COMPUTER USE.

So basically, these games are almost perfect, and I this line is what I consider to be the best chance for Black.

You are the retard here, fighthing to defend a refuted line.

Again, plz refute my refuting line, if your Qa5 line is good you shouldnt have trouble finding something better for Black.

And plz, this time do it in depth , dont spit the same stupid thing you said "11...Ne5 is 1 milicentipawn lower for White than 11...Rfc8 cause Im gonna die from a heart attack.

Also, you are missing a big point, engines most of the time need to be guided by humans.

The idea with Qa5 is to bring the f8-rook to the c-file, and Black's strategy in this lines is based on playing Nc4  so they will have to get a rook into the c-file.

Wasting a tempo with Qa5 to get the a-rook to the c-file would be stupid and would be an inconsistency in Black's plan, so lines will obviously transpose to the main position after 16.g4 Rc8 unless you can hack this world and find something better for Black.

Thanks SylentSwords, to me it is rather clear that the Qa5 systems in the dragon are far away from being the best option, and that saying that 11...Ne5 is .10 centipawns lower for White when lines will transpose just to defend your stupid argument by saying you didnt say what the engine would play (is clear that we will reach the position after 16.g4 Rc8) next is simply offensive to my humble brain.

?

OK, first of all, screaming at me in all capital letters is extremely rude. Secondly, computers are far from perfect, especially when analyzing very sharp unclear lines. Thirdly, the idea of Qa5 is not stupid because if White plays Nb3 the moved Knight is displaced. It is certainly an annoying move, but not a refutation. The fundamental purpose of Qa5 is to arrange a potential exchange sacrifice on c3 or support a queenside pawn storm or both (Raf8 is often played at some point, it is really a question of when this should be played that needs to be addressed). I am currently analyzing after the potential improvement I found; I will get back to you when I get the results.

Lol.

What is extremely rude is for you to waste my time, I have 10 kids to feed and I am not getting out of my way to answer you just to tell me that a OTB game will not refute the line when I clearly stated that I got it from the ICCF (you didnt even care to look that up) and that this is what I think is the best try for Black (I didnt blindly posted the game and showed another line which I think is busted harder than the Rxc2 one).

The idea of Qa5 is stupid, ideas are stupid when analysis refutes them. My king feels safer with a knight on nb3 and it is not so clear if the knight is misplaced as you say, if you took a look at the lines you would see that White usually plays g5 to play Nd5 later on and that because the d-file can be opened with tempo at anytime (with Nb3) Black cant even play e6 (which would be horrible anyways.)

The knight on b3 also controls c5, which comes in handy in the Nxd6 line where White has the Qf2-Bc5 idea, to pressure the e7-pawn.

Listen gchess333.

I dont like apologizing, and I would preffer not to (I have no reason to do so), however I will, just to keep things friendly.

Im sorry if I offended you by writing all Caps, however you have to understand me.

1-I know the Qa5 lines are busted with a .00001% fail rate however I didnt mind having a friendly theoritical discussion with you to dig deeper in the lines to the point where I would have actually proved my point.

2- I was expecting serious analysis and all you did for 3 comments or so was call me patzer, say the line isnt busted without any analysis to back it up, say that a book will save your line and then come with your 11...Ne5 is .00005 centipawns lower for White.

3- How the hell am I not supposed to get a heart attack/rant syndrome after that?

4- Im waiting your analysis, and I hope you dont hack the chess world and somehow find an improvement that keeps Black alive.

5-Please do it a little bit in depth, try to reach a position where it is clear Black is OK, not a position where your engine says +.20 (equal).

I was merely telling you about a change that I noticed as I digged deeper. I'm still looking into it and will keep updating you as I get new information. I did look at ICCF, contrary to what you thought, and to be honest in a theoretical discussion statistics on win/loss percentage by players do not define theory. Opening theory is partly determined by humans who come up with ideas and partly by the rigorous analysis of strong engines. To answer your second point, the difference between +0.34 and +0.46 (12 whole centipawns) evaluations at a fairly good-sized search depth is the difference between equality and White having a small advantage.

Here's what I have so far. I'll continue to analyze tomorrow.

Nothing new, that is a weird Soltis an almost no one played it in my database.

How did you look at the ICCF, are you a member there? 

This weird Soltis seems to benefit White, there is no Nc4 thread yet, his king is on b1 and there isnt a single rook on the c-file (in the soltis there is a line with Bh6 where Black sacs the rooks on c3)

I dont think this benefits Black at all, however I will get out of my way again (I was feeding my 4th child) to find something good for White (shouldnt be hard)

Tomorrow I should have enough time to give this position a more thorough analysis (I really wanted at least 30-35 ply to come to a reasonable conclusion, but 25 ply is decent).

Also, what the hell are you talking about? Wins/loss of course determine the current health of a line, specially in a server where everyone uses an engine to check their moves.

If you for some weird reason played Qa5 (a pet line that you cant leave?!) in the ICCF and couldnt draw/win with the help of an engine then that would count as a win for White, which is significant in this databases and usually you will not find a single blunder in the games.

Also, 0.12+ doesnt matter at all, if that were to be true then White would win all time engines count the first move advantage as 0.20+.

You seem to think you are talking to some ignorant patzer, which thankfully I think Im not!

You are implying that in all games both players were blindly following engines throughout the games. This is not necessarily true.

That is not true, and anyone that does that is simply doing it wrong and has no experience in handling engines or in centaur chess.

The quality of games on the ICCF is simply magnificient compared to OTB chess and the human/engine combination will always be better than an engine, as engines dont know about endgames/position play.

Letting the engine sit on the position after 13...h5 just so it reaches 30 ply is stupid,you need to walk the engine trough the lines.

I have other things to do in life but here is a very dangerous line I found on the database.

I analyzed the position after 12...h5 using Stockfish's #1 choices at 25 ply. The result was a draw. Next I will analyze your suggestion 13. g4!?

@gchess33

only 25 ply? the deep blue computer could search up to 40 ply