Maybe, the variation was popular in the 60s and with Rfc8, Ward wrote a book on the variation. It seems that all the lines ended with a plus for White and nothing was found in the remaining years to help. When I last played the line back in the 90’s it ended in disaster. So it was back to the main line Soltis for me.
Sicilian Dragon, Yugoslav Attack: 10...Qa5 refuted?
Sort:
Too bad.... I got his DVD on this variation.
Ah, well. At least I also got Play the Sicilian Dragon by Eduard Dearing
I was going to link to a Andew Martin article 'Dragon Forever' that covers the ...Qa5 Dragon and why it is not considered good for Black, but it seems like ALL the pages on jeremysilman.com now auto-forward to his shop. So if we want to access anything in his archives, we have to dig through Google. Lame.
Here's a link to a cached copy: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:n7JYWGhsKbQJ:www.jeremysilman.com/chess_bits_pieces/dragon_forever_1.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Basically White is playing Kb1 and Bg5, then Black's Q will be misplaced on a5 because White can aim to set up the Nd5 tactic.
Sounds convicing to me. The last game I played with it, IM Jack Peters said it was an old, bad line. I told him that was as far as I got in my study and after he won a best game prize for thumping me it was an easy choice to play a different line.
The combination of Qa5 and Bd7 seems a little strange. Qa5 is more common in combination with very early Nxd4 and Be6 to go for mass exchanges after Bxb3 cxb3 opens up the c-file. Kb1 and Nd5 discovered attack tricks will no work once black has moves his f8-rook.
An example from top master level play:
I play 10...Qa5 after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7.f3 Nc6 8. Qd2 O-O 9.Bc4 Bd7 10. O-O-O (or Bb3). I read somewhere that this line has been refuted. Is this true?