Why is this important? be happy that we can eavesdrop on the discussions of very strong players. lets try to learn and ask questions that keep the conversation going.
Why is the dragon considered dubious
Sort:
FirebrandX wrote:
uhohspaghettio wrote:
Mainline_Novelty wrote:
uhohspaghettio wrote:
Pogonina has the full GM title however, not just the WGM title. She is one of the very few ladies to ever have done so.
I didn't know that...why doesn't she use it here then?
It seems you're right, but "grandmaster" and not "woman grandmaster" is written in several places. Possibly it's a difference between Russian and English usage.
Whatever the case her peak rating was above 2500, which is the general standard for GM status.
According to FIDE, Natalia is only a WGM. She has never gained either IM or GM status.
Really the whole WGM stuff seems pointless to me. Chess does not require physical exertion that women cannot handle just as well as a man, so having these female titles is utterly pointless in my opinion.
Plus it's realy confusing. Where the hell does a WFM rank among titled players?!
UltraLaser wrote:
"Drawish at upper level" is one of the most pointless things people can post in a forum. Most people here are not upper level players and therefore it is not necessarily drawish below this. And the dragon isn't at all drawish at lower levels.
Not really. If its not 'losing' at top level that means it cant be that bad.
Two things strike me as off on this thread.
a) WGM Pogonina was addressed as "Mrs. Pogonina". I don't know about her married status, but as a WGM posting as an authority on chess in a chess forum, she should be addressed by her professional title. She has earned the WGM title, not the GM title. Her marital status is irrelevant to her claims. Her WGM title is very relevant.
I don't think Nigel Short or any other GM would be addressed as "Mr. Short (or whatever their last name happened to be) in a chess forum, they would be addressed by their title.
b) IM PFren is an International Master and accords due respect as such. His FIDE rating may seem low to some, but he has earned the title. If you argue for "rating inflation", you should explain what that rate of inflation is and why no statistician has yet been to explain that rate. In fact, most statisticians argue that there hasn't been any rating inflation in the last 40 years.
I agree abot the no rating inflation. If only Fisher had more 2650's to beat up on his rating would have been higher. You just can't gain enough points beating Bisguier and Lombardy. Larsen was only high 2500. Nearly every strong player today would place 1st behind Fisher (I think Nakamura said something like that). There were simply not enough high rated players to demonstrate the disparity in playing strength 40 years ago. Fisher's interzonal results would have been no different if he had played all 20 games against 2650 players.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Sadly I do not know enough theory on the dragon, but from what I've seen if black can get their bishop on e6 and avoid a quick knockout they are in for a fun game. First of all it's your standard race situation, both sides are going to gain space on opposite sides of the board. Black's bishops will look menacing on g7 and e6, but it's up to black to show that they have as much substance as style. But as Pogonina said you better know the theory, I've played the dragon 2-3 times and due to a lack of theory knowledge lost very quickly to the Yugoslav. I wouldn't call it dubious, sharp seems more appropiate (like the king's gambit).
Like WGM Polgania points out the theory Black needs to know just to stay afloat in the Dragon is just too time consuming. You add in the fact that once it becomes known you play the Dragon as Black the frequency of running into uber booked up players on your Dragon becomes common. I guess this can be a real pain against weaker players during a tournament. One slip up and you have major issues. It just seems that the time required to play the Dragon competently is not worth the expected returns.........
weak player dont prepare for individuals. even GM's don't prep for specific opponents in US swiss tournaments. maybe if you were going into a double round robin. were any of you invited to Tata
?!
so i take it the dragon is playable?
i find the najdorf much harder to play as black provided of course that white is a good player. the pressure is just too much.
kantifields wrote:
weak player dont prepare for individuals. even GM's don't prep for specific opponents in US swiss tournaments. maybe if you were going into a double round robin. were any of you invited to Tata
True, but the point being is this opening does not handle inaccuracies very well. Through a slight inaccuracy you could find yoursef giving a full point away. As the WGM pointed out the Dragon requires specific knowledge of a good amount of theory in order to just stay afloat. Given all of this the Dragon just does not seem like a really good practical choice for an amateur player.
Bobby Fischer used to beat the Dragon a lot. Especially in speed chess.
And the discussion ended about there. God had spoken....
Karpov was quite the giant killer.
Two titled players who are much stronger than any of the rest of us post on this thread, offering useful advice, and all some people do is argue which one of the two is stronger? It might be an idea to listen to them instead.
The dragon is not only dubious, it is down right dangerous due to it's fire breathing capabilities, plus they are notoriously hard to train and keep loyal.I had one once but sold it after it ate my dog and the neighbour.
Karpov's loss to Korchnoi was in a 1971 training match. He got his revenge in 1974 in the Candidates and I don't think Korchnoi played against Karpov again.
Is this a whose got the biggest peak conversation?
Is this some sort of dirty euphemism or...