I love dragons and dragons’ stories. When younger I used to play “Dungeons and Dragons” role playing games with my Apple II Plus (despite the pompous name it was a “terrific” 48 K computer, but state-of-the-art in those days). And nope, no graphics at all, just little dots that extracted from you all your imagination to figure out what really was going on in the midst of that nonsensical – but hopefully full of meaning for you – bunch of little dots that pulsated like living/breathing ants!
Therefore, I loved the Sicilian Dragon. But when you grew older the task of memorizing 25-30 moves with plenty of ramifications looks like trying to climb Mount Everest (at the same age that we are talking about and with the magnificent fitness of a desk intellectual...).
But don’t panic. Dragons are still within your grasp ... Accelerated ones!
I am an Accelerated Dragon fan, and years ago I was an avid reader of Silman and Donaldson’s seminal work on the defense.
Therefore, you can imagine my dismay when I saw GM van der Weide article just here, at Jeremy Silman’s site.
Is the GM right? Is our beloved “faster-beast” dead and buried for all practical matters?
Well, I certainly cannot judge it from van der Weide standpoint, he is a GM fighting against colleagues. Maybe at his level this defense has lost some feasibility (although I doubt it, taking into account variations and commentaries from several writers and grandmasters, and actual sources such as “Experts vs. the Sicilian, or, more specifically, “Starting out: The Accelerated Dragon” by Andrew Greet ... both of which you can buy here at jeremysilmandotcom, as I did!). What I believe is that van der Weide simply do not like the positions that arise from the classical approach against the A.D. And in this sense, I partly agree with him. It is not the dreaded Maroczy bind which I fear most, but several of the rather dull lines that can arise from the more simplistic approaches that White may choose.
It is not that Black is clearly inferior, nothing of the sort. It means that even an inferior opponent can get you into positions that may be rather too drawish. But, to be fair, I believe that this is a common situation with many openings when you are playing Black. There is a saying in boxing: “When one is not eager to, two cannot fight”. Many imbalances arise from the combative spirit of the contestants. An opponent that knows more or less the system that he/she is playing, and at the same time is in a “Wu Wei” state of mind, could be a real pain in the backside against a player that is out for blood.
Now lets go to the variation that GM van der Weide considers to be the end of the Accelerated Dragon (“the end”, at least in terms of realistic viability. You may find the original article HERE
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0–0 8.Bb3 d6 9.h3
The critical position
This is the position from which van der Weide begins its final analysis of the variation he is proposing (namely the h3 and Re1 plan) which, by the way, is quite venomous ... that is, if Black has not done his/her homework properly.
Now, after 9.h3, van der Weide gives two moves, 9...a6 – which stays in a short note, and is insufficient – and 9...Bd7, which gets a somewhat deeper analysis, with the conclusion that it leads to a better game for White. A verdict that I agree with. So, what is my point, then?
The point is that Black has another possibility, which is indeed the theoretical best choice – namely 9...Na5!
9...Na5 Black’s most reliable move
A move that’s been known since 1969 ... you might say that it may have been played by unknown players, but that is certainly not the case. This move has been played by Kasparov, Topalov, Leko, Chatabalshev, Bologan, Moldovan, Alterman, K.Georgiev, Guseinov, Pavasovic, T.Petrosian (the younger one, rated 2606 at the time), Adorjan, and many others. Indeed, the line has a 51% to 49% in White’s favor, quite a remarkable percentage from Black’s point of view.
It must be said that Andrew Greet, in his generally excellent book on the Accelerated Dragon from 2008, also makes the same mistake: he does not mention 9...Na5 at all and suggests the 9...Bd7 line, although everything goes to a brief note, as he does not develops at all White’s h3 - Re1 plan.
With all due respect, I firmly believe that if you are going to send a sort of death sentence to a variation (in this case a whole line of defense), you must be much more careful than that, Grandmaster or not.
I am recommending the …d6, …Na5 line because I consider it the safest in theoretical terms, but you must be aware of the fact that by playing 8...d6, we have entered directly into the realm of the other Dragon ... and therefore, you must know the lines that go 9.f3 Bd7 10.Qd2 and be ready – and theoretical prepared! – to continue 10...Nxd4 11.Bxd4 b5!
You must be ready to play this line of the normal Dragon, which eventually will be part of another article!
Before entering into the 9...Na5 line, I want to briefly comment about GM van der Weide “further refutations” of the Accelerated Dragon, namely the following lines:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0–0 8.Bb3 a5 The well known Uogele variation 9.0–0. The move recommended by GM van der Weide, which has been lately the main recipe against the Uogele.
But here van der Weide only takes into account two moves, …d6 – which allows Ndb5 with rather better chances for White, although by no means a lost game for Black – and the “main” line a4 ... but he completely overlooks what is perhaps black’s most reliable reply, 9...Nxd4!?
Those that have seen this move commented by a certain IM at Chessbase Magazine, will be amused to see the “legendary” commentator giving this move a “!?” and calling it “a bit premature”. I have shown in another article of mine the kind of nonsense that this IM used to produce – both in terms of theoretical idiocies as well as historical inaccuracies of every kind and color ... the fact that he is “counter-endorsing” this move may be another reason to take it as a serious choice!
I will not go too deeply, but just take a look at the following, after 9...Nxd4 10.Bxd4 d6 11.a4 Bd7 12.Re1 Bc6 13.Nd5 Shirov chose 13…Nd7 (13...e6 seems a very safe move, I just cannot find any White advantage, if someone does, please let me know. Here’s an example: 14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 15.Bc4 Rc8 16.b3 Bxd4 17.Qxd4 d5 18.exd5 Bxd5 19.Bxd5 Qxd5 20.Qxd5 exd5 21.Re2 Rc5 22.Rd1 Rfc8 23.g3 b5 24.axb5 Rxb5 25.Red2 d4 26.Ra1 Rc3, ½–½, A.Shchekachev [2572] - N.Nikcevic [2468], France 2003) 14.c3 Nc5 (here 14...e6 again looks okay: 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.Bc2 Bxd5 17.exd5 e5 18.Bd3 f5, ½–½, G.Gopal [2528] - S.Roy Chowdhury [2418], Chennai 2008) 15.Bc2 e6 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Qd4+ f6 18.b4 axb4 19.cxb4 exd5 20.bxc5 dxc5, ½-½, A.Hernandez Leon – A.Frois, Mondariz Balneario 2008. Again, I can’t find any White advantage here.
Therefore, as far as I can see, this particular line of the Uogele complex is fine for Black.
But let me go even a little further, this time to Jeremy Silman’s own favorite move, 7…Qa5. This move was also analyzed by van der Weide as follows:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Qa5 and now van der Weide gives 8.O-O O-O 9.Bb3 d6 10.h3 Bd7 11.Re1 Rfe8 (Jeremy’s recommendation in 1991) 12.Qe2 Qh5 13.Qc4! (the exclamation sign is given by van der Weide himself)
Another supposed “refutation”
Then van der Weide gives two moves, 13...g5, which GM Lie used to beat van der Weide, but I agree with the Dutch GM now, after 14.f3 I clearly prefer White (van der Weide went into the wild 14.Nf5 and lost). But I cannot agree with van der Weide comments about the other possible move, 13...Ne5 he gives 14.Qf1 Nc6 15.Nde2 with the commentary: “keeps all the material on the board and therefore leaves Black with his spatial problems.”
Okay, I admit White has played some subtle chess in this venomous h3-Re1 line, the “ a la Niemzowitch” Qc4-Qf1 maneuver is cute, but ... I still see no real advantage for White. In fact I have been looking further at the only game I found, played by two very well known Grandmasters, and found no advantage there at any moment of the game:
V.Bologan (2580) - Peter Heine Nielsen (2505)
Bundesliga, Germany 1998
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Qa5 8.0–0 0–0 9.Bb3 d6 10.h3 Bd7 11.Re1 Rfe8 12.Qe2 Qh5 13.Qc4 Ne5 14.Qf1 Nc6 15.Nde2 Qa5 16.f4 Qc7 17.Qf2 b6 18.g4 Na5 19.Ng3 Nxb3 20.cxb3 Bc6 21.g5 Nd7 22.Rad1 Nc5 23.Bd4 Bxd4 24.Qxd4 e5 25.Qxd6 Qxd6 26.Rxd6 exf4 27.Rxc6 fxg3 28.Nd5 Re5 29.b4 Ne6 30.h4 Rd8 31.Rc8 Rexd5 32.exd5 Rxc8 33.dxe6 fxe6 34.Rxe6 Rc2 35.Re7 Rxb2 36.Rxa7 Rxb4 37.Kg2 Rxh4 38.Kxg3 Rb4 39.a4 Rc4 40.a5 Rc3+ 41.Kf4 Rc4+ 42.Kg3 bxa5 43.Rxa5 Rb4, ½–½.
If some of my readers find proof enough to quit playing the Accelerated Dragon based on this line, please let me know! Therefore, we’ve seen two other Black plans that are still well enough and kicking!
Now, let me go to my principal meal of the day, the …Na5 line.
Werner Hase (2532) - A.Hoffmann (2552)
Wch 19 corr ICCF, 1999
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.Bc4 0–0 8.h3 Nc6 9.Bb3 Na5
10.0–0
Other moves are also important:
1) 10.f4 Nxb3 (the safest) 11.axb3 b6 12.Qf3 Bb7 13.g4 Qd7 (13...a6!? 14.g5 Nh5 15.f5 Rc8 16.O-O Be5 17.fxg6 fxg6 18.Qg4 Ng3 19.Nc6? Rxf1+ 20.Rxf1 Qd7 21.Rf3 Nxe4 22.Bd4 Nxg5, 0-1, Mitrovic - Markovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1996) 14.O-O-O Rac8 15.g5 Nh5 16.f5 Bxd4! 17.Rxd4 Qxf5 18.Qg2 Qe5 and Black was much better in Movsesian - Brodsky, Korzalin 1998.
2) 10.Qd2 Nxb3! 11.axb3 d5 12.e5 Ne4 13.Nxe4 dxe4 14.Bf4 Qb6 15.Qe3 f6 (another immediate approach was seen in the very recent [2009] game Anand - Mamedov graciously pointed ot to me by our kind host and friend IM Jeremy Silman, who, as expected, was rather interested in the whatabouts of all these lines – 15…Rd8 16.c3 Be6 17.Ra3 Bd5 18.0–0 f6 19.Qg3 fxe5 20.Bxe5 Bxe5 21.Qxe5 Qf6 22.Qg3 e5 23.Nc2 Qf4 24.Qe3 Qxe3 25.Nxe3 Bf7 26.Rfa1 a6 27.b4 Rac8 28.Ra5 Rd2 29.Rb1 Bb3 30.Rxe5 Rf8 31.Rf1 Rxb2 32.Rxe4 Ba4 33.f3 Re2 34.Nd5 Rc2 35.c4 Bb3 36.Ne3 Re2 37.Rf2 Re1+ 38.Rf1 Re2 39.Rb1 Ba4 40.Nd5 Rd2 41.Rbe1 Rf7 42.R1e2 Rxe2 43.Rxe2 Kf8 44.Kf2 Bc6 45.Nb6 Rf6 46.Rd2 Ke8 47.Nc8 Rf4 48.Ke3 Rf6 49.Nd6+ Ke7 50.c5 Rf8 51.Nc4 Bb5 52.Na5 Rb8 53.Rd6 b6 54.Rxb6 Rxb6 55.cxb6 Kd6 56.h4, 1–0. But, I fully agree with Jeremy that Black seemed to be doing okay with his early …Nxb3, …d5 plan. Mamedov lost the thread, I think, before or nearly after exchanging Queens –playing against Anand is a sort of a nightmare anyway) 16.Qxe4 fxe5 17.Bxe5 Bf5 18.Qd5+ e6 19.Qa5 Bxe5 20.Qxe5 Bxc2 21.Nxc2 Qxf2+ 22.Kd1 Rac8 23.Qe4 Rfd8+ (according to Alterman in his notes to this game now 23...e5! was better 24.Kc1 Rf4 25.Qd5+ Rf7 26.Qe4 Rfc7 27.Kb1 Rxc2 28.Qd5 Kg7 29.Qe5+ Kh6 30.Ra4 R8c5 with a clear advantage) 24.Kc1 e5 25.Rd1, ½–½, Oll - Alterman, Beijing 1998.
Black must be aware of the pitfalls awaiting him in this 10.Qd2 line, see for example the following 2009 game:
A.Shirov - G.Guseinov
AZE vs. World G/25 Baku (2), 2009
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0–0 8.Bb3 d6 9.h3 Na5 10.Qd2 b6 11.0–0–0 Bb7 12.f3 Nxb3+ 13.axb3 a6 14.Bh6 Qc7 15.h4 Bxh6 16.Qxh6 e5 17.Nf5 Ne8 18.Ne3 Rc8 19.h5 b5 20.Rd2 b4 21.Ncd5 Bxd5 22.Nxd5 Qb7 23.g4 Rc5 24.g5 Rxd5 25.exd5 Qd7 26.Rdh2 Ng7 27.hxg6 fxg6 28.Qxh7+, 1–0.
That is why I am recommending the early …Nxb3, …d5 plan. Before this article went to the Web I also found this skittles played by the affable American IM Greg Shahade, who usually records videos of his blitz games at ICC. Take a look at the following:
Bobfischrules - G.Shahade
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0–0 8.Bb3 d6 9.h3 Na5 10.Qd2 b6 11.0–0–0 Bb7 12.f3 Rc8? 13.Kb1 Nc4 14.Bxc4 Rxc4 15.h4 Qc7 16.Ndb5 Qb8 17.g4 Rfc8 18.h5 a6 19.Nd4 Qc7 20.hxg6 hxg6 21.Nde2 b5 22.a3 b4 23.axb4 Rxb4 24.Bh6 Bh8! 25.Bf8 Rxf8 26.Rxh8+ Kxh8 27.Qh6+ Kg8 28.Rh1 Nh5 29.gxh5 Rc8 30.hxg6, 1–0.
A tremendous beating, the origins of which we can find in Black’s mistake of treating the position as a regular Dragon. This cannot be done! You have been warned! Thanks to IM Shahade for sharing his chess glories and disgraces always with grace and poise.
Coming back at last to our main line (10.0-0), now there a number of options, but the most reliable seems to be:
10...b6
11.Re1
The plan that van der Weide is generally recommending, with good reason indeed, as it has some venom. The plan is the well known device, Bg5 & Nd5 with an eventual opening of the e-file and pressure over e7. We must concede that now Black must be careful and play precisely in order not to be left with a position with no counterplay at all.
The alternatives are not appetizing:
1) 11.Qd3 Bb7 and please look at the databases for the following games: Brunner - Velimirovic; Kholmov -Tibensky; Polgar - Topalov among others. Black has dynamic chances throughout.
2) 11.f4 Bb7 12.Qd3 Rc8 13.Rae1 Rxc3 14.Qxc3 Nxe4 15.Qd3 Nxb3 16.axb3 e5 17.Ne2 Qa8 18.b4 Nf6 19.Rf2 Ne4 20.Rff1 Re8 21.Kh2 Nf6 22.Rg1 Nd5 23.Bd2 e4 24.Qb3 e3 25.Bc3 Nxc3 26.bxc3 b5 27.c4 bxc4 28.Qxc4 Be4 29.Qb3 d5 30.c3 Bd3 31.Nd4 Qb8 32.g3 Bc4 33.Qd1 Re4 34.Qf3 Bxd4 35.cxd4 Qxb4 36.Rb1 Qd2+ 37.Kh1 Qxd4 38.f5 Re8 39.Rb7 Qe4 40.Qxe4 Rxe4 41.f6 Re8 42.Re1 e2 43.Rxa7 d4 44.Rd7 d3 45.Kg2 h5 46.g4 hxg4 47.hxg4 g5 48.Kf2 Kh7 49.Rc1 Re4 50.Ke1 Rxg4 51.Kd2 Kg6 52.Rc7 Re4 53.Re7 Rf4 54.Rc7 Re4 55.Re7 Be6, 0–1, Mortensen - Kudrin, Copenhagen 1983
3) 11.f3 Bb7 12.Rf2 Qc8 13.Qf1 Ba6 14.Qe1 Nc4 15.Bxc4 Qxc4 16.b3 Qc8 17.Nd5 Nxd5 18.exd5 e5 19.dxe6 fxe6 20.c4 d5 21.cxd5 exd5 22.Rc2 Qd7 23.Qd2 Rfc8 24.Rxc8+ Rxc8 25.Rd1 Qd6 26.Nc2 Rc3 27.Bd4 Rd3 28.Qe2 Rxd1+ 29.Qxd1 Bh6 30.Qe1 Kf7 31.Qc3 Bb7 32.Nb4 Bf4 33.Nd3 Bg3 34.Qd2 Ba6 35.Nb4 Bf4 36.Qc3 Bb7 37.a4 Qc7 38.Qe1 Qe7 39.Qxe7+ Kxe7 40.Kf2 Bd6 41.Nd3 Ba6 42.Ke3 Ke6 43.Nf4+, ½–½, Jonny Hector - Dorian Rogozenko, Hamburg 2003.
4) 11.Nd5 e6!? (11...Bb7 may transpose Brunner-Velimirovic 1990, quoted above; 11...Ba6 12.Nxf6+ Bxf6 13.Re1 Qd7 14.Qd2 Rac8 15.Rad1 Qc7 16.Bg5 Bh8 17.Re3 Rfe8 18.Rf3 Nxb3 19.axb3 Bb7 20.Rc3 Qd7 21.Re1 Rc5 22.Bh4 Rec8 23.Ree3 Be5 24.Qd3 a6 25.Bg3 Bg7 26.Rc4 b5 27.Rc3 Bf6 28.Kh2 h5 29.h4 Qd8 30.Kh3 Bg7 31.f3 Qa5 32.Bh2 Bh6 33.f4 Qc7 34.Rf3 e5 35.Ne2 exf4 36.Nxf4 Bg7 37.Rxc5 Qxc5 38.c3 Re8 39.Nd5 f5 40.Ne7+ Rxe7 41.Bxd6, 0-1, Iruzubieta Villaluenga – D.Komljenovic, San Sebastian 1991) 12.Nxf6+ Qxf6 13.c3 Bb7 14.f3 h6 15.Nc2 Rad8 16.Nb4 Qe7 17.Bd4 Qc7 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.Qd4+ Kg8 20.Qd2 h5 21.Rfd1 d5 22.exd5 Nxb3 23.axb3 a5 24.Nd3 Rxd5 25.c4 Rd4 26.Qe3 Rfd8 27.Nf2 Qc5 28.Rxd4 Rxd4 29.Rd1 Rxc4 30.Qh6 Rd4 31.Rc1 Qf8 32.Qe3 Qd6 33.Qh6 Rd2 34.Ne4 Rd1+ 35.Kf2 Qd4+ 36.Kg3 Rxc1 37.Qxc1 Bxe4 38.fxe4 Qxe4 39.Qc8+ Kg7 40.Qc3+ e5, 0–1, W.Wittmann – G.Mohr, AUT-ch 2009.
11...Bb7 12.Bg5
12.f3 a6 13.Nd5 Nxb3! 14.Nxf6+ Bf6 15.axb3 d5!
12…Nxb3
Most direct.
Kasparov’s choice, although …a6 is also possible, as in Nieminen-Sutovsky, Port Erin 1999; or 12...h6 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.Bd5 Rc8 15.Bxb7 Nxb7 16.Nd5 Bg7 17.c3 Nc5 18.Qe2 e6 19.Nb4 a5 20.Nd3 d5 21.e5 a4 22.a3 Qd7 23.f4 Nb7 24.Nb4 Na5 25.Qb5 Qxb5 26.Nxb5 Nc4 27.Re2 g5 28.Nd3 gxf4 29.Nd4 Rce8 30.Rae1 Kh7 31.Nxf4 Rg8 32.Nh5 Bh8 33.g4 Rc8 34.Kf2 Rc7, ½–½, H.Kosmol - N.Molzahn, ICCF Email 2000.
13.axb3
13…Re8
The older move, played in order to defend in advance against the White’s plan, but in a rather static way. Later a more dynamic plan was played, as chosen by Kasparov below.
Other moves:
1) 13...d5 (If this radical approach works, then Black is certainly okay in this variation, although this move is part of a plan that may produce a position in which the Bishop pair is not very effective, and I do not like that.) 14.exd5 (14.Bxf6 as in Kurajica - Musil 1971, may be better, producing the kind of position about which I was talking) 14…Nxd5 15.Ndb5 Nxc3 16.Nxc3 Qxd1 17.Rexd1 f6 18.Be3 Bc6 19.Nd5 Bxd5 20.Rxd5 f5 21.Rd7 f4 22.Bd2 a5 23.Re1 e5 24.Bc3 Rf7 25.Red1 Rxd7 26.Rxd7 Rc8, ½–½, M.Adamczyk - N.Salomone, IECG 2003.
2) 13...h6 was the choice of the huge old Monster in Anand-Kasparov, Linares 2003: 14.Bh4 Qd7! (A very strong and certainly not automatic move, which is countering white’s plan of Nd5 covering the critical f5 square. It was not Kasparov’s invention, as GM Abramovic played it in a 1991, but he lost the game.) 15.Qd2 Nh5! – here Abramovic played the inferior …Re8 – 16.f3 e5 and Kasparov got a kind of Sicilian structure that he understands superbly. The position is quite sharp and a draw was the final result, the rest of the game could be found in any database.
14.Qd2
Now, in Centerman - B.Hanison, Stans Net Chess 2004, White played 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Qd3 and here Black played the strange 15...a5, a move I do not understand at all – I do not see that a b4 plan by White could be as strong as to oblige Black to play this ugly move (better seems 15...a6 for example, 16.Nd5 Bg7 followed eventually by …e6 with a dynamic position with counterchances for Black) 16.Nd5 Bg7 17.Rad1 Rc8 18.c4 Be5 19.Qe3 Bg7 20.Re2 Rc5 21.Red2 h6 22.f4 Kh7 23.Rf1 Ba6 24.Nc3 Bb7 25.f5 g5 26.Qf3 Rg8 27.Qg4 Be5 28.Rff2 Qe8 29.Rd1 Bf4 30.Kh1 Be5 31.Nd5 a4 32.Nxb6 axb3 33.Nxb3 Rc6 34.c5 dxc5 35.Nc4 Bc7 36.e5 Ba8 37.Rd5 Qb8 38.Nbd2 Rd8 39.Rxd8 Qxd8 40.Ne4 Ra6 41.f6 Bxe4 42.Qxe4+ Kg8 43.Rd2, 1–0.
14.Qd3 has also been played: 14...a6 and now we have the very strange game Sanchez-Cebalo, Calvi 2008, which continued 15 Rad1 Rc8 16.f4 b5 17.Nde2 b4 18.Na4 which should be already almost winning for Black, but it continued 18...h6? 19.Bxf6 Bxf6 20.Ng3 Bg7?! 21.Qe3 Qc7, 1-0 (with a still slightly more promising position for Black). My only guess is that Black lost on time and was in bad time trouble during the last few moves.
14...a6 15.Bh6 Bh8 16.f3 Rc8 17.Red1 Qc7 18.b4 b5 19.Qf2 Nd7 20.Nce2 Nb6 21.c3 e6 22.Nc1 Nc4 23.Nd3 Qb6 24.Ra2 Rc7 25.Kh2 Bf6 26.Qg3 Rd7 27.Bg5 Bg7 28.Qh4 Qc7 29.Nf2 e5 30.Ne2 d5 31.b3 Nd6 32.Rad2 Qb6 33.Ng3 f5 34.Nd3
It has been obvious, since the last moves, that Black is more than holding his own. He has at least an equal position, full of dynamism. I would rather be Black in this position.
34…Rf7 35.exf5 Nxf5 36.Nxf5 Rxf5 37.Nc5 Bc6 38.Ra2 a5 39.Qg3 Bf8 40.Be3 axb4 41.cxb4 Ra8 42.Rxa8 Bxa8 43.Ra1 Bb7 44.Rc1 d4 45.Bg5? Bg7?
And here Black was even winning, if he hadn’t missed the shot 46...e4!!
46.Qh4 Bd5 47.Ra1 Qc7 48.Kg1 Qf7 49.Ne4 Qc7 50.Nc5 Qf7 51.Ne4 Qc7 52.Nc5, ½-½.
There are very few high rated correspondence games with this line against the Accelerated Dragon, and with good reason. Strong correspondence player try to choose promising lines with White. And this is not one of them when your opponent is keen enough to know what he is doing.
As far as I can see, the Maroczy is still the most testing weapon against the Accelerated Dragon, at least in the higher ranks of chess.
Therefore, don’t panic. If you like the “faster Dragon”, let it be known that it is still well enough, alive and kicking, despite all rumors about its health!
