Mastafade wrote:
Black doesn't have to 4. ...Nxd5...
Yes, but White is still a pawn up and can take the knight on f6 with check next turn with a winning game.
Sicilian Dragon, REFUTED!!!
Sort:
Tenna wrote:
5. ... Qc7
Actually, this is probably the critical continuation. But White has a great line to counter it that, according to Fritz 8 gives White a pawn and a half advantage.
DrizztD wrote:
Actually, this line is fine for black and gives compensation in the form of better development, monster bishops, and a possible queenside attack.
Woof, for a second I thought someone actually had refuted it after the decades of study poured into it
Check the note above.
Mehdipiero wrote:
yes black won't exchange queens on d5, theory says 13...Qc7 as shown here earlier. and in case 14.Qxa8 black answers with Bf5 15.Qxf8+ which will be Q for two rooks and a pawn. I am not sure of the assesment of this position though, unclear or equal chances or maybe even slightly better for black because of the initiative he has now on white's king. and it's far from easy for white to make it to the endgame safely (exchange bishops).
and one more correction:
after 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.exd5 black takes with the knight first, the move order is impotant here, because on your diagram 11...cxd5 white has Bd4 countering the dragon bishop. however on 11...Nxd5 12.Bd4 doesn't work like before because of 12...e5 13.Bc5 Be6 black sacks the exchange for play on queenside and minor piece play. which is also theory.
Not a chance. I have to agree that at first sight this position is probably equal to the human eye, but according to Fritz 8, White has a monster position, and is leading by at least a pawn and a half.
Natalia_Pogonina wrote:
A provocative way of getting people to actually analyze some lines in the Dragon.
In case someone is really worried about the statement in the topic-starter's post: this variation has nothing to do with refuting the Dragon.
I am humbled that a WGM took the time to look at my lines, although I have to disagree. Computer analysis has shown me that White is way better.
Ugh!!! I just told a WGM that I think she is wrong!
I really am pushing it now.
Imo, I prefer Kxf8 to Bxf8 as the dragon bishop remains on its diagonal where it eyes the b2 and c3 squares. If Bxf8 and white plays c3 as a response to prevent the checkmate on c2, he will get mated anyway after Bxc3 bxc3 Qxc3#. When I analyze the position after Kxf8 w/ Fritz, it suggests Rd2 and gives white an advantage of ~1.23 +/- (NOT +-, so black isn't fried yet and can still draw as of now). The Dragon can't really be "refuted" by a line so simple as Nxc6-there is likely a not-so-obvious reason why this isn't played.
southpawsam wrote:
Natalia_Pogonina wrote:
A provocative way of getting people to actually analyze some lines in the Dragon.
In case someone is really worried about the statement in the topic-starter's post: this variation has nothing to do with refuting the Dragon.
I am humbled that a WGM took the time to look at my lines, although I have to disagree. Computer analysis has shown me that White is way better.
That's computer analysis? Having an engine analize a position isn't going to refute an opening. Also, something's wrong with your fritz 8. My fritz 9 says -0.2 Fritz says the King's Gambit is -0.5 yet Carlsen plays it. And the Grob is also refuted by your logic. It doesn't matter what a computer thinks...I will still take on anyone with the Dragon...
and just to prove my point, I challenge you to a game in this line.
DrizztD wrote:
Alex-F wrote:
Can you post the first few moves?
I'll message you some stuff.
What, is it a freemason secret?
ivandh wrote:
DrizztD wrote:
Alex-F wrote:
Can you post the first few moves?
I'll message you some stuff.
What, is it a freemason secret?
No, I'm just really longwinded, and didn't want to clog the thread with long unrelated posts.
I wonder if sloughterchess has any improvements to make in this line. Surely a refutation is not too far off. Perhaps ChessTrainor could give me a few tips on how to play it? His experience and skill would be invaluable!
This whole thread is so ridiculous I can't tell if you are being serious or if this is some elaborate hoax. Since when does "my Fritz 8 says it's a .76 or whatever" pass for an evaluation of a position that nullifies years of accumulated chess theory and knowledge? What justifies such arrogance?
Are you the only person in Chicagoland with both a computer and Fritz 8?
Do the older chess players grovel at your feet, holding out little scraps of paper with opening lines scribbled by hand, begging you to feed it into your magic box and decipher the eternal truth... "Fritz 8 says your King's Indian Defense, played by most World champions and countless GM's is a +.57 with best play and therefore TOTALLY BUSTED! I suggest you try the Slav..."
Does GM Yury Shulman stop by your place on the weekends to confer with your cutting edge opening analysis before upcoming tournaments?
My only hope is that you had some kind of wager with a friend along the lines of..."I bet I can create a post so inflammatory that IM Jeremy Silman spontaneously combusts..."
Please reply with something like "Ha ha...the joke is on you for taking me seriously" or else I will be deeply concerned for both the fate of chess and indeed all mankind.
No, I think he really is that arrogant, but we'll see.
Jun 22, 2010
0
#35
"Not quite refuted yet, but I agree it does have its problems." - ACEChess
Ah - Danny Rensch! I watch all of his videos. A funny guy. Likes to mangle the English language frequently, i.e., cackle for castle, say silly stuff like - population smashtown White - etc. 
So, what are these problems with the Dragon that an IM would make the above statement?
I don't play the dragon, but I will trust that Carlsen has a bigger, better computer than your silly Fritz 8 running on a POS computer and if he feels comfortable playing it against 2700+ GMS, I doubt it's refuted.
Jun 22, 2010
0
#37
Mate he can play the kings gambit too but that don't mean it's a solid opening mate. I personally like it myself and found it to be a 50/50 opening.
Cutebold wrote:
I wonder if sloughterchess has any improvements to make in this line. Surely a refutation is not too far off. Perhaps ChessTrainor could give me a few tips on how to play it? His experience and skill would be invaluable!
Really LOL!
I plan to go through all of the notes you guys left and make a comment on them.