Originally posted by englishsicilian Exigentsky, I believe you are correct after looking back at Silman's book. c5, g6 is the hyper-accelerated dragon. Assuming that white then plays 3. d4 there are two main responses: 3..cxd as in Alburt or 3...Bg7 as in Silman's book and in the games of Shabalov, etc. It seems to me that there are a number of reasons for playing these lines. First ...[text shortened]... it the "main problem" with the line...It's just a minor variation that I find annoying.
Interesting, but Qxd4 is really not to be feared. It is a very weak recapture from white which leaves him behind in development and without a strong attack. Everytime I exchange my flank pawn for the central d pawn I actually hope that my opponent will take with the queen. (Such a line requires very precise play from White and even with great play White has no advantage.)
That's good thinking. I may start trying the Alburt line. I've taken to playing the English as white and I think it will be good for me to see both sides of the Maroczy Bind.
Yeah, I like it. Also, if you're really scared of Qxd, the book Chess Openings for Black has a chapter on it.
Anyway, the opening is solid, and it works for me. However, before I studied it, understood its ideas and memorized most lines up to the 10th move, I was struggling with it. I didn't understand the importance of counter-attacking and fought on my opponent's turf, instead of mine, the queenside. THe only thing which might be a little concerning is the Maroczy bind. It is very drawish. Over 50% of games are draws. Though, I think with these better lines it is probably a little less now.
Originally posted by exigentsky For the past two weeks I have adopted the Sicilian as my response to 1 e4, more specifically the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon. I did this based on the recommendation from Chess openings for Black, Explained by Lev Alburt, Roman Dzind... and Eugene Perel... While I like the opening, I have browsed some chess databases, mostly chessgames.com and I feel discoura GMs recommend an opening which gives White a 20%+ better chance of winning in normal lines!!??
Are you asking about it because you beat celticcountry twice with it?
He beat himself in that opening, making several out and out
blunders in both games.
Originally posted by sonhouse Are you asking about it because you beat celticcountry twice with it?
He beat himself in that opening, making several out and out
blunders in both games.
Of course not, why would I suspect an opening to be unsound BECAUSE I won with it? Maybe if I consistently lost, I may blame the opening, but not if I win. This has nothing to do with any opponents I've played thus far, it's just because there are some discouraging statistics for the Maroczy bind. I expect to use this opening for a long time to come and so I need it to be completely solid.
There seems to be a "gap" in Chess Openings for Black Explained when describing the closed sicilian when white doesn't fianchetto his kingside bishop (like in this game). In this game I felt like I had no good plan, while white had a strong attack on my king! I was in the process of trying to get an attack on the queenside (should that be the plan in the closed sicilian usually?), and granted I could have done a better job defending and possibly weathered the attack, but is there something ELSE i could do to get some counterplay of my own and not get insta-attacked?
In 1990, I was invited to compete in a 12 player round-robin tournament that would take place over several weeks. I was the lowest rated player in the event (my USCF rating was 2131 at the time) and the highest rated player was 2405. My final score was 3.5 - 7.5 (1 win, 5 draws, 5 losses), which I considered an acceptable result as it was approximately 0.5 better than the expected result that would be predicted based upon my rating and the ratings of my 11 opponents.
In one of the early rounds, I was scheduled to play Black against the second highest rated player in the event (he was 2385). I knew that this player always opened 1.e4 and that faced with the Sicilian, he would usually continue with 2. Nf3 and 3. Bb5(+). Although playing 2... e6 would avoid his favorite line, he would have undoubtedly have been prepared for it and I wanted to get into an opening where I was more familiar with the lines than he. Thus, I turned to 2...g6. I prepared with the help of an old booklet on unusual second moves in the Sicilian (by Keene and Blackstock), of which roughly a third is devoted to 2...g6.
My decision to play the Hyper-Accelerated turned out quite well. Faced with a line with which he was not familiar, my opponent chose an inferior variation and I quickly obtained a very good game and nearly won (the game ended in a draw). The main point to all this is (as it has often been repeated in this forum), almost any opening is playable in OTB competition (though it should be noted that being more familiar with the opening than one's opponent is not insignificant).
Incidentally, if anyone is interested in purchasing the aforementioned booklet, send me a PM - I probably can be convinced in to parting with it for a relatively small sum.
Originally posted by exigentsky For the past two weeks I have adopted the Sicilian as my response to 1 e4, more specifically the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon. I did this based on the recommendation from Chess openings for Black, Explained by Lev Alburt, Roman Dzind... and Eugene Perel... While I like the opening, I have browsed some chess databases, mostly chessgames.com and I feel discoura ...[text shortened]... GMs recommend an opening which gives White a 20%+ better chance of winning in normal lines!!??
In that book, they only recommend the hyper accelerated dragon move order to reach the accelerated dragon.
Originally posted by tomtom232 Thats the hungarian variation! not the hyper whatsits madoodey
In "Lasker's Manual of Chess", the opening 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Be7 is referred to as the "Hungarian Defense". I have never seen the opening 1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 g6 referred to as the "Hungarian Defense" or "Hungarian Variation". I would be curious to know what source you possess that refers to that move order as the "Hungarian Variation".
The booklet that I mentioned in my previous post is titled "Sicilian 3: Unusual Second Moves for Black". The authors are R.D. Keene and L.S. Blackstock and it was published in 1974. Keene was responsible for the section of the booklet on the variation that is the theme of this thread and he refers to it as "The Hyper-Accelerated Fianchetto". I would surmise that people started calling it the "The Hyper-Accelerated Dragon" a few years later.
I've used the Accelerated Dragon on most of my Black games after e4 with mixed results. As soon as you can become familiar with most of the options, I find you can usually enter tactical phase of the game with at least approximate equality.
The times I've lost, it isn't the fault of the opening, usually just running into an opponent with a sharper tactical sense than me, or with a better grasp of the resulting endgame.
Originally posted by AlboMalapropFoozer In "Lasker's Manual of Chess", the opening 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Be7 is referred to as the "Hungarian Defense". I have never seen the opening 1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 g6 referred to as the "Hungarian Defense" or "Hungarian Variation". I would be curious to know what source you possess that refers to that move order as the "Hungarian Variation".
The ...[text shortened]... people started calling it the "The Hyper-Accelerated Dragon" a few years later.
It is the Hungarian Variation to the Sicillian not the actual Hungarian Defense which is the moves that you posted.
Is the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon Unsound?
12 Jan '06 23:12
Back to Top