| |
Main
Date: 25 Apr 2005 21:33:02
From:
Subject: A question about 12. Qe2 in Sicilian Dragon Yugoslav Attack
|
I recently played a gaime against Junior 9 (not Deep Junior 9...I'm
not rich enough to afford getting that program). Anyway...I created an
opening book using the Sicilian Dragon the Yugoslav Attack...and I
have a question about this particular line....
1. e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7. f3
Nc6 8. Qd2 0-0 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. 0-0-0 Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12. Qe2?!
Personally I don't know why this move isn't played more often in the
Sicilian Dragon. I can't find it listed as a viable option in my
recently purchased Dragon for Experts CD from Chessbase. The Queen
protects c4 and prevents Black from playing it's typical Nc4 move
which usually attacks the White Queen sitting on d2.
Usually at this point in the game White chooses the g4 or h4 push to
go on the attack on Black's castled position. But 12. Qe2 isn't out of
the question here...I was able to locate a game played back in 1966
that has this Queen move...and the statistics from that search shows
that it's a viable move.
Any thoughts on this?
|
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2005 04:14:08
From: Ron
Subject: Re: A question about 12. Qe2 in Sicilian Dragon Yugoslav Attack
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:
> 1. e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7. f3
> Nc6 8. Qd2 0-0 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. 0-0-0 Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12. Qe2?!
>
> Personally I don't know why this move isn't played more often in the
> Sicilian Dragon. I can't find it listed as a viable option in my
> recently purchased Dragon for Experts CD from Chessbase. The Queen
> protects c4 and prevents Black from playing it's typical Nc4 move
> which usually attacks the White Queen sitting on d2.
>
> Usually at this point in the game White chooses the g4 or h4 push to
> go on the attack on Black's castled position. But 12. Qe2 isn't out of
> the question here...I was able to locate a game played back in 1966
> that has this Queen move...and the statistics from that search shows
> that it's a viable move.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
I'm ambivalent about it - although I don't play either side of the
dragon any more.
There is, however, a lot of value in a move like this, especially if
you're playing, say, under 1800 (USCF) chess -- which is that you make
your opponent think for himself. And you want opponents in that range
thinkign for themselves rather than merely trying to repeat what they've
been told.
The biggest problem I see with this move is that it makes black's
thematic sacrifice-on-g4 more effective. eg, from the above line
12. ... Qa5 13.g4? Nexg4! (Nfxg4 may be even stronger) 14.fxg4 Bxg4
Now 15.Qg2 Bxd1 with Rxc3 coming looks strong, so 15.Nf3 but the
exchange sac followed by Nxe4 looks very reasonable for black. The
white queen seems misplaced in these lines.
Of course, white can try 13.h4 but 13...Rxc3 is still an option. The
queen on e2 doesn't deter that sacrifice.
Part of the problem is that, on e2, the queen doesn't seem to be doing
anything. On d2 it helps defend against the exchange sacrifice, supports
Bh6, and acts as a latent threat to force an endgame against a Qa5
through the maneuver Kb1 & Nd5. On e2, it seems like more of a target
-- it doesn't really support the g4 square, and black doesn't really
need c4 yet. He can double rooks with Rc5 and Rfc8 if he likes.
These are reasons why I would avoid playing Qe2 -- but I don't claim to
be anywhere close to strong enough to evaluate the objective truth of
the move, and, as I said, there's clearly value to throwing black on his
own resources in a position as sharp as the yugoslav.
-Ron
|
| | |
Date: 26 Apr 2005 07:39:04
From:
Subject: Re: A question about 12. Qe2 in Sicilian Dragon Yugoslav Attack
|
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 04:14:08 GMT, Ron <[email protected] >
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> 1. e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7. f3
>> Nc6 8. Qd2 0-0 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. 0-0-0 Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12. Qe2?!
>>
>> Personally I don't know why this move isn't played more often in the
>> Sicilian Dragon. I can't find it listed as a viable option in my
>> recently purchased Dragon for Experts CD from Chessbase. The Queen
>> protects c4 and prevents Black from playing it's typical Nc4 move
>> which usually attacks the White Queen sitting on d2.
>>
>> Usually at this point in the game White chooses the g4 or h4 push to
>> go on the attack on Black's castled position. But 12. Qe2 isn't out of
>> the question here...I was able to locate a game played back in 1966
>> that has this Queen move...and the statistics from that search shows
>> that it's a viable move.
>>
>> Any thoughts on this?
>
>I'm ambivalent about it - although I don't play either side of the
>dragon any more.
>
>There is, however, a lot of value in a move like this, especially if
>you're playing, say, under 1800 (USCF) chess -- which is that you make
>your opponent think for himself. And you want opponents in that range
>thinkign for themselves rather than merely trying to repeat what they've
>been told.
>
>The biggest problem I see with this move is that it makes black's
>thematic sacrifice-on-g4 more effective. eg, from the above line
>
>12. ... Qa5 13.g4? Nexg4! (Nfxg4 may be even stronger) 14.fxg4 Bxg4
>
>Now 15.Qg2 Bxd1 with Rxc3 coming looks strong, so 15.Nf3 but the
>exchange sac followed by Nxe4 looks very reasonable for black. The
>white queen seems misplaced in these lines.
>
>Of course, white can try 13.h4 but 13...Rxc3 is still an option. The
>queen on e2 doesn't deter that sacrifice.
>
>Part of the problem is that, on e2, the queen doesn't seem to be doing
>anything. On d2 it helps defend against the exchange sacrifice, supports
>Bh6, and acts as a latent threat to force an endgame against a Qa5
>through the maneuver Kb1 & Nd5. On e2, it seems like more of a target
>-- it doesn't really support the g4 square, and black doesn't really
>need c4 yet. He can double rooks with Rc5 and Rfc8 if he likes.
>
>These are reasons why I would avoid playing Qe2 -- but I don't claim to
>be anywhere close to strong enough to evaluate the objective truth of
>the move, and, as I said, there's clearly value to throwing black on his
>own resources in a position as sharp as the yugoslav.
>
>-Ron
The stem game that Chessbase gave me when I did a filter on this move
was given to be Calvo Minguez, R-Herren,W/Zuerich 1962, White winning
in 29 moves. Another one that Chessbase gave me was Bednikova,S-Pina
Sierra,J/Oropesa del 1999 with White winning in 36 moves.
Clearly, this line with 12.Qe2 has to be investigated more thoroughly.
Junior immediately replied with 12...Rxc3, not wanting to take the
chance on Qa5. I think Junior has calculated it loses too much time
with that move because I've played several games using Qe2 and Junior
has never deviated. It plays the same line 12...Rxc3. But then
again...the time control I give for games playing against Junior is
5/10. I never give the computer the same time limit I give
myself...which is 60/30.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2005 17:52:34
From: Ron
Subject: Re: A question about 12. Qe2 in Sicilian Dragon Yugoslav Attack
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:
> The stem game that Chessbase gave me when I did a filter on this move
> was given to be Calvo Minguez, R-Herren,W/Zuerich 1962, White winning
> in 29 moves. Another one that Chessbase gave me was Bednikova,S-Pina
> Sierra,J/Oropesa del 1999 with White winning in 36 moves.
Do we know anything about those players?
Qe2 has been played more, I think in the Qa5/Rfc8 lines, eg,
Gipslis-Stein, Moscow, 1967.
I just don't understand the value of it. Wasting time to control c4 may
just amount to giving black enough time to play a6, b5, and then Nc4,
which he usually doesn't have time for (the point being that now Bxc4
opens up the b-file, which is harder for white to defend than the
c-file).
-Ron
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2005 20:37:46
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: A question about 12. Qe2 in Sicilian Dragon Yugoslav Attack
|
En/na Ron ha escrit:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>The stem game that Chessbase gave me when I did a filter on this move
>>was given to be Calvo Minguez, R-Herren,W/Zuerich 1962, White winning
>>in 29 moves. Another one that Chessbase gave me was Bednikova,S-Pina
>>Sierra,J/Oropesa del 1999 with White winning in 36 moves.
>
> Do we know anything about those players?
>
> -Ron
Calvo was an IM from Spain who was too a doctor in medecin.
I was not born when that game was played.
No idea about the players of the second game but Oropesa is a place
where many under-10 (u-12, ...) tournaments have been played.
AT
|
|
