I've pretty much decided to stop using the Sicilian Dragon, as I find it too uncompromising, which isn't me at all. Coupled with that is that I hate playing the black pieces in the Yugoslav Attack.
I've always been trying to decide between the Dragon and Accelerated Dragon, and have picked the more positional Accelerated Dragon to combat e4.
any Dragon devotees who can persuade me otherwise?
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by YUG0slavhmmm CMSMaster hasnt pounced on this thread and slapped you silly for such a barbaric thought....no doubt he will 🙂
I've pretty much decided to stop using the Sicilian Dragon, as I find it too uncompromising, which isn't me at all. Coupled with that is that I hate playing the black pieces in the Yugoslav Attack.
I've always been trying to decide between the Dragon and Accelerated Dragon, and have picked the more positional Accelerated Dragon to combat e4.
any Dragon devotees who can persuade me otherwise?
I used to play the Dragon when I was around 1600ish, gave it up because of the Yugoslav attack, I just thought that the Yugoslav was too thermatic for white to play.....im told this is mainly due to my lack of study of the opening, which I tend to agree with 🙂
I think I must be the sickest Dragon player ever, because I prefer to play against the Yugoslav, and have a better record against it than the Classical or say, the Levenfish. I like the fact that it's uncomprising and outrageously complex. You can't deny that If I gave you the Sicilian position at move 3, and told you to put all your pieces on their best squares, you would put a Bishop on g7, a knight on c6, 0-0, and eventually a rook would come to the c-file. I think if a Dragon player fears the Yugoslav, he doesn't know enough about it and hasn't really gotten to the bottom of it yet. Maybe it's just me, but I would rather play the black side of a Yugoslav than the Black side of a Maroczy Bind, and trust me, I have, because I played the accelerated dragon for quite a while also. Try winning one of those endgames one time. It's ridiculous.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!I'm the complete opposite, I prefer to play against a Maroczy Bind (it's fun work to break it) and prefer the White side of the Yugoslav. In fact, the variation of the Accelerated Dragon that I prefer is with Qa5, with the intent to force white to castle kingside and avoid the Yugoslav. But perhaps It's simply because I have studied the Accelerated Dragon more.
I think I must be the sickest Dragon player ever, because I prefer to play against the Yugoslav, and have a better record against it than the Classical or say, the Levenfish. I like the fact that it's uncomprising and outrageously complex. You can't deny that If I gave you the Sicilian position at move 3, and told you to put all your pieces on their best sq ...[text shortened]... ragon for quite a while also. Try winning one of those endgames one time. It's ridiculous.
I'm a Najdorf player, and there's a similar problem with the lines after 6. Bg5. In correspondence chess you're ok. because you can use databases and so on, but OTB these lines can be a real problem because the slightest slip up by either side is usually disastrous.
From the point of view of someone who plays the white side of the opening, against a player who knows what he's doing the Yugoslav can backfire quite badly, my record against it is pretty bad.
Originally posted by YUG0slavThe Yugoslav attack isn't a problem. If you want to know how to win with the Dragon I suggest the video by GM Chris Ward called The Sicilian Dragon by Foxy Openings.
I've pretty much decided to stop using the Sicilian Dragon, as I find it too uncompromising, which isn't me at all. Coupled with that is that I hate playing the black pieces in the Yugoslav Attack.
I've always been trying to decide between the Dragon and Accelerated Dragon, and have picked the more positional Accelerated Dragon to combat e4.
any Dragon devotees who can persuade me otherwise?
Meanwhile, show me how I can win against the Maroczy bind that White can force in the Accelerated Sicilian?
Originally posted by YUG0slavWell you obviously have no balls. 😛
I've pretty much decided to stop using the Sicilian Dragon, as I find it too uncompromising, which isn't me at all. Coupled with that is that I hate playing the black pieces in the Yugoslav Attack.
I've always been trying to decide between the Dragon and Accelerated Dragon, and have picked the more positional Accelerated Dragon to combat e4.
any Dragon devotees who can persuade me otherwise?
How can you NOT like to play against the Yugoslav attack? Every game's insane, and white misplays it in pretty much every encounter I've had with it, making my record with it recently very nice. One major thing to remember is that you WILL NOT be able to play it if you don't have major thematic knowledge, and more importantly rote lines.
Play The Sicilian Dragon covers pretty much everything that a Dragon player will need to know to play it well, but it takes an insane amount of time to go through. So, if you want convincing to continue playing this opening I'd recommend getting this book, spending the time to go through it (And it's a LOT of time), and then seeing the wins pile up with it. I'd also check out the DVD Arrakis mentioned, I haven't heard of it, but Chris Ward is insane with the Dragon.
If the mainline Yugoslav isn't working for you then you could also check out the Chinese Dragon which is wildly popular - but likely just another Dragon fad.
!~Tony~! is the guy to talk to if you need Dragon help though. I'd be hard pressed to find somebody who knows more about the Dragon that is n't at IM+ level. He persuaded me to continue on with the Dragon, suggested PTSD, and I've been having nice results since then.
Haha, I dunno. Humorously enough, I just played this game, and literally the whole game is in Dearings book.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. Bc4 0-0 8. f3 Nc6 9. Qd2 Bd7 10. 0-0-0 Ne5 11. Bb3 Rc8 12. h4 h5 13. Bg5 Rc5 14. Rhe1 b5 15. f4 Nc4 16. Bxc4 Rxc4 17. e5 b4 18. Qd3 Rxd4 19. Qxd4 bxc3 20. exf6 exf6 21. Qxd6 fxg5 22. Qxd7 Qa5 23. Qd5 Qb4 24. Qb3 Qxf4+ 25. Kb1 Rb8 26. Qa4 Rxb2+ 27. Ka1 Qxa4 0-1
I only remembered up to 17..b4!, and thought for a long time about move 18 and 25 (it took me a while to realize the queen covered b8!), but the rest is pretty much forced. It's just funny how deep these lines are analyzed.
Originally posted by z00tThe old founder of Chess Digest, Ken Smith, advised exactly the opposite. He said you won't progress unless you play lots of gambits for a period of time so that you get used to playing a pawn down while having an advantage in space and development.
Nah I digress, I would advice anyone who wants to improve to avoid sharp tactical play such as from the King's Gambit/Dragon and choose "sound" openings. Who over 2500 plays these openings today?
My tactics improved when I played "All Gambits, All The Time" for a year. Of course, then I took 2 years off playing chess and lost all that, but what the heck.
Originally posted by z00tAlexei Fedorov plays both.
Nah I digress, I would advice anyone who wants to improve to avoid sharp tactical play such as from the King's Gambit/Dragon and choose "sound" openings. Who over 2500 plays these openings today?
How is avoiding tactical play beneficial to progressing as a player? I tried the English opening for a while (about as "sound" as you can get) and struggled horribly. It wasn't until I switched to the KG that I started scoring well.
And it wasn't too long ago that Kasparov used the Dragon in his Wch match and won.
Also, after 1.e4 e5 of all of the games played on RHP 2.f4 scores best - including 2.Nf3. It's hard to argue with results, I personally score 16-2-2 (W-L-D) on here with the KG. Why should I switch?