Follow-up (1) on TWIC Theory II: Return of the Dragon
This week's TWIC Theory features Andrew Martin taking on 10...Qa5 in the Sicilian Dragon, focusing on 11.O-O-O Rfc8 12.Kb1 Ne5 13.Bg5 as more or less refuting the variation.
[Position after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 O-O 8.Bb3 d6 9.f3 Bd7 10.Qd2 Qa5 11.O-O-O Rfc8 12.Kb1 Ne5 13.Bg5]
My initial impression as a non-Dragon player was that Martin was offering something new or at least little-known (which he often does in his theoretical articles), but it turns out that he's reporting what looks like the consensus: in PowerBook 2004, White's score after 13.Bg5 (sometimes called the "Moles Variation") is a garish (from Black's perspective) 73%, Golubev praises the move and gives line after line leading to a clear White advantage, and Rogozenko's ChessBase work on the Dragon praises 13.Bg5 as well as "a very attractive line for White, which offers multiple possibilities both in the middlegame and the endgame." Thus while I don't have Ward's latest Dragon book or the new Gambit volume, there seems to be widespread agreement in both theory and practice as to the virtues of the Moles Variation.
As 12.h4 is viewed as the main line, however, Martin is performing a useful service for the White player by letting him or her avoid much potentially superfluous theory, so even if he's simply repeating what others have already written, publicizing that information has value.
Unfortunately, Martin's repetition of others' work is taken to an extreme. Compare the following:
On move 15 of the game Arizmendi-Etchegaray, White played 15.Nb3. Martin offers this note:
"15.Bxf6 brings nothing, here is a recent example: Bxf6 16.Nd5 Qxd2 17.Nxf6+ Kg7! 18.Nh5+ Kh6! A well-known motif - Black isn't forced to break the pawn structure. 19.Rxd2 Kxh5 20.Ne2 1/2-1/2, Lobron, E-Cebalo M/Wijk aan Zee 2003"
Rogozenko annotated this same Arizmendi-Etchegaray game for ChessBase long before Martin's TWIC Theory column came out; here's what he had to say about this variation:
"15.Bxf6 brings nothing, here is a recent example: Bxf6 16.Nd5 Qxd2 17.Nxf6+ Kg7! 18.Nh5+ Kh6! A well-known motif - Black isn't forced to break the pawn structure. 19.Rxd2 Kxh5 20.Ne2 1/2-1/2, Lobron, E-Cebalo M/Wijk aan Zee 2003"
Hmm, I'm getting a sense of deja vu. Continuing along, after 15.Nb3 Black plays 15...Qd8. Here's Martin:
"After 15...Qd8? we will see Black fall victim to one of the typical traps in this line where he gets wiped out in the center."
Now Rogozenko:
"There are so many opening traps in the modern theory of chess openings, that it is hardly possible even for a GM to remember all of them. However, if one plays [the] Dragon, one should know certain typical dangers."
Not so bad; but what do they have to say Black should have done?
Martin: "15...Qe5 is practically the only move, although I am not sure that the resulting positions are satisfactory for Black at all: [line follows]"
Rogozenko writes this: "15...Qe5 is correct [Note: the word "correct" appears in his first set of notes for ChessBase - presumably for some issue of ChessBase Magazine, but drops out in his notes to the game on his Dragon CD] and practically the only move, although I am not sure that the resulting positions are completely satisfactory for Black."
Then, after 15...Qd8? 16.e5!, Martin writes: "Of course. The idea is as old as Dragon itself [sic]. This was the initial main idea behind the move Be3-g5 (although in different variations)." This passage can be found verbatim in Rogozenko's analysis.
Martin's second game (Hernandez-Amura) isn't annotated in any of my sources, so I can't do any comparing with that one. Still, it is clear that Martin repeatedly lifted Rogozenko's notes without quotation or attribution, though unless one is aware of a pattern in his work, the charitable interpretation is that he imported Rogozenko's annotations for the sake of his research (something I do when preparing my weekly audio lectures for ChessBase) but neglected to make a note in the game file as to whose notes were whose (something I'm careful to do, for precisely this reason).
All that is by way of background discussion; next I'll turn to a brief discussion of some Victor Reppert's suggestions.
[Position after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 O-O 8.Bb3 d6 9.f3 Bd7 10.Qd2 Qa5 11.O-O-O Rfc8 12.Kb1 Ne5 13.Bg5]
My initial impression as a non-Dragon player was that Martin was offering something new or at least little-known (which he often does in his theoretical articles), but it turns out that he's reporting what looks like the consensus: in PowerBook 2004, White's score after 13.Bg5 (sometimes called the "Moles Variation") is a garish (from Black's perspective) 73%, Golubev praises the move and gives line after line leading to a clear White advantage, and Rogozenko's ChessBase work on the Dragon praises 13.Bg5 as well as "a very attractive line for White, which offers multiple possibilities both in the middlegame and the endgame." Thus while I don't have Ward's latest Dragon book or the new Gambit volume, there seems to be widespread agreement in both theory and practice as to the virtues of the Moles Variation.
As 12.h4 is viewed as the main line, however, Martin is performing a useful service for the White player by letting him or her avoid much potentially superfluous theory, so even if he's simply repeating what others have already written, publicizing that information has value.
Unfortunately, Martin's repetition of others' work is taken to an extreme. Compare the following:
On move 15 of the game Arizmendi-Etchegaray, White played 15.Nb3. Martin offers this note:
"15.Bxf6 brings nothing, here is a recent example: Bxf6 16.Nd5 Qxd2 17.Nxf6+ Kg7! 18.Nh5+ Kh6! A well-known motif - Black isn't forced to break the pawn structure. 19.Rxd2 Kxh5 20.Ne2 1/2-1/2, Lobron, E-Cebalo M/Wijk aan Zee 2003"
Rogozenko annotated this same Arizmendi-Etchegaray game for ChessBase long before Martin's TWIC Theory column came out; here's what he had to say about this variation:
"15.Bxf6 brings nothing, here is a recent example: Bxf6 16.Nd5 Qxd2 17.Nxf6+ Kg7! 18.Nh5+ Kh6! A well-known motif - Black isn't forced to break the pawn structure. 19.Rxd2 Kxh5 20.Ne2 1/2-1/2, Lobron, E-Cebalo M/Wijk aan Zee 2003"
Hmm, I'm getting a sense of deja vu. Continuing along, after 15.Nb3 Black plays 15...Qd8. Here's Martin:
"After 15...Qd8? we will see Black fall victim to one of the typical traps in this line where he gets wiped out in the center."
Now Rogozenko:
"There are so many opening traps in the modern theory of chess openings, that it is hardly possible even for a GM to remember all of them. However, if one plays [the] Dragon, one should know certain typical dangers."
Not so bad; but what do they have to say Black should have done?
Martin: "15...Qe5 is practically the only move, although I am not sure that the resulting positions are satisfactory for Black at all: [line follows]"
Rogozenko writes this: "15...Qe5 is correct [Note: the word "correct" appears in his first set of notes for ChessBase - presumably for some issue of ChessBase Magazine, but drops out in his notes to the game on his Dragon CD] and practically the only move, although I am not sure that the resulting positions are completely satisfactory for Black."
Then, after 15...Qd8? 16.e5!, Martin writes: "Of course. The idea is as old as Dragon itself [sic]. This was the initial main idea behind the move Be3-g5 (although in different variations)." This passage can be found verbatim in Rogozenko's analysis.
Martin's second game (Hernandez-Amura) isn't annotated in any of my sources, so I can't do any comparing with that one. Still, it is clear that Martin repeatedly lifted Rogozenko's notes without quotation or attribution, though unless one is aware of a pattern in his work, the charitable interpretation is that he imported Rogozenko's annotations for the sake of his research (something I do when preparing my weekly audio lectures for ChessBase) but neglected to make a note in the game file as to whose notes were whose (something I'm careful to do, for precisely this reason).
All that is by way of background discussion; next I'll turn to a brief discussion of some Victor Reppert's suggestions.
posted by Dennis Monokroussos @ 4:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home