Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

The Hungarian Dragon — A Modern Approach Against 1. e4

"it's refuted by the engine"

"it's refuted by the engine" * What is the refutation? Kasparov played it 4 times in his World Championship match against Anand: 2 wins and 2 draws. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018626 Carlsen played in Linares 2009 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1536441

@tpr said in #2:

"it's refuted by the engine"

I consider the Yugoslav an effective refutation of the traditional Dragon. It puts a significant amount of pressure on the Black position, making attacking play quite difficult. I've played the Dragon for ages now, and I rarely ever beat the Yugoslav, which I faced very often against players rated 1600+ (face-to-face).

Meanwhile, I played an opponent with a FIDE of around 2000 who didn't even know the Hungarian Dragon existed. Plus, it's far less prone to attacks.

Additionally, engines are significantly more powerful today than they were when the games were played (2000s), and most show a solid advantage for white in the Yugoslav, hovering around +0.5 to +0.7.

I see your point, though. It's not horrible at the lower level--in fact, it's an amazing opening for beginners and intermediates--but most players rated 2000+ FIDE know how to beat the Dragon in the modern day.

I should rephrase a bit on the engine refutation part.

@tpr said in #2: > "it's refuted by the engine" > * What is the refutation? > Kasparov played it 4 times in his World Championship match against Anand: 2 wins and 2 draws. > www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018626 > Carlsen played in Linares 2009 > www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1536441 I consider the Yugoslav an effective refutation of the traditional Dragon. It puts a significant amount of pressure on the Black position, making attacking play quite difficult. I've played the Dragon for ages now, and I rarely ever beat the Yugoslav, which I faced very often against players rated 1600+ (face-to-face). Meanwhile, I played an opponent with a FIDE of around 2000 who didn't even know the Hungarian Dragon existed. Plus, it's far less prone to attacks. Additionally, engines are significantly more powerful today than they were when the games were played (2000s), and most show a solid advantage for white in the Yugoslav, hovering around +0.5 to +0.7. I see your point, though. It's not horrible at the lower level--in fact, it's an amazing opening for beginners and intermediates--but most players rated 2000+ FIDE know how to beat the Dragon in the modern day. I should rephrase a bit on the engine refutation part.

"I consider the Yugoslav an effective refutation of the traditional Dragon." * Fischer considered it like that too, but Kasparov beat Anand with it in a World Championship match. I am not aware of the present theoretical status of the regular Dragon.

"I played an opponent with a FIDE of around 2000 who didn't even know the Hungarian Dragon existed." * I am FIDE 2000+ too and did not hear about it until your blog. I am still skeptical though. In the regular Dragon white goes to all the trouble of Be3, Qd2, Bh6 to trade off Bg7 and exploit the weakened dark squares. Here you play ...h5 and ...Bh6 yourself, weakening even more and voluntarily trading off Bf8... The Hungarian Dragon gives white also +0.5, but black can hold. Example:

https://lichess.org/tgNDjjnH/black#14

"a solid advantage for white in the Yugoslav, hovering around +0.5 to +0.7." * That is not a solid advantage. +1 means 50% chance to win. Alekhine's Defense of the King's Indian Defense are around +1. Could you point to an engine game or correspondence game where the Dragon is refuted?

"I consider the Yugoslav an effective refutation of the traditional Dragon." * Fischer considered it like that too, but Kasparov beat Anand with it in a World Championship match. I am not aware of the present theoretical status of the regular Dragon. "I played an opponent with a FIDE of around 2000 who didn't even know the Hungarian Dragon existed." * I am FIDE 2000+ too and did not hear about it until your blog. I am still skeptical though. In the regular Dragon white goes to all the trouble of Be3, Qd2, Bh6 to trade off Bg7 and exploit the weakened dark squares. Here you play ...h5 and ...Bh6 yourself, weakening even more and voluntarily trading off Bf8... The Hungarian Dragon gives white also +0.5, but black can hold. Example: https://lichess.org/tgNDjjnH/black#14 "a solid advantage for white in the Yugoslav, hovering around +0.5 to +0.7." * That is not a solid advantage. +1 means 50% chance to win. Alekhine's Defense of the King's Indian Defense are around +1. Could you point to an engine game or correspondence game where the Dragon is refuted?

https://wiki.chessdom.org/TCEC_Season_16_Superfinal_Game_100_%E2%80%93_Stockfish-AllieStein
Engine game here.

The normal Dragon is usually a complete defensive battle because of White's dominance over the position in the Yugoslav with the bishop pair. Trading off White's powerful bishop on e3 while keeping your king on g7 through Kf8-Kg7 (the latter more common in O-O-O lines) is much safer than playing the Dragon normally, which requires insane precision to defend, despite both evals hovering around +0.5.

I think you don't get the point of h5. It aims to prevent White's h4-g4 pawn push, which is usually quite overwhelming in the regular Dragon, as well as perform the trade of bishops, which is defensively super beneficial for black.

The Hungarian is basically a Dragon that sacrifices some attacking play for defensive stability. You don't see mating attacks from White often against the Hungarian, while you see them in the normal Dragon.

I believe it's a matter of preference whether you like the Hungarian or not. More aggressive players would naturally prefer the Sicilian Dragon, but players with less aggressive play would likely prefer the Hungarian.

I played the normal Dragon for around five years and found it quite difficult to attain an advantage against the Yugoslav because white players understand the position extremely well, so I decided to make the switch to this lesser-known line.

Meanwhile, the Hungarian, which is pretty unknown among people below 2200 FIDE, tends to provide great results for me because it's better eval-wise and defensively against the more common O-O-O in the traditional Dragon. You can still build up a powerful attack with Black in opposite-side castled positions without the dark-squared bishop.

I can show you an average game with the Hungarian against O-O-O if you'd like.

https://wiki.chessdom.org/TCEC_Season_16_Superfinal_Game_100_%E2%80%93_Stockfish-AllieStein Engine game here. The normal Dragon is usually a complete defensive battle because of White's dominance over the position in the Yugoslav with the bishop pair. Trading off White's powerful bishop on e3 while keeping your king on g7 through Kf8-Kg7 (the latter more common in O-O-O lines) is much safer than playing the Dragon normally, which requires insane precision to defend, despite both evals hovering around +0.5. I think you don't get the point of h5. It aims to prevent White's h4-g4 pawn push, which is usually quite overwhelming in the regular Dragon, as well as perform the trade of bishops, which is defensively super beneficial for black. The Hungarian is basically a Dragon that sacrifices some attacking play for defensive stability. You don't see mating attacks from White often against the Hungarian, while you see them in the normal Dragon. I believe it's a matter of preference whether you like the Hungarian or not. More aggressive players would naturally prefer the Sicilian Dragon, but players with less aggressive play would likely prefer the Hungarian. I played the normal Dragon for around five years and found it quite difficult to attain an advantage against the Yugoslav because white players understand the position extremely well, so I decided to make the switch to this lesser-known line. Meanwhile, the Hungarian, which is pretty unknown among people below 2200 FIDE, tends to provide great results for me because it's better eval-wise and defensively against the more common O-O-O in the traditional Dragon. You can still build up a powerful attack with Black in opposite-side castled positions without the dark-squared bishop. I can show you an average game with the Hungarian against O-O-O if you'd like.

Thank you for the TCEC Dragon game. It is also here on lichess:

https://lichess.org/iEGgO9VV

I guess the Hungarian Dragon has indeed surprise value.
In the regular Dragon black also blocks h4 with ...h5, so I guess in the Hungarian Dragon white can play g4 just the same.

Thank you for the TCEC Dragon game. It is also here on lichess: https://lichess.org/iEGgO9VV I guess the Hungarian Dragon has indeed surprise value. In the regular Dragon black also blocks h4 with ...h5, so I guess in the Hungarian Dragon white can play g4 just the same.

Not exactly, as your rook is on h8, making the h5 push a lot harder for White in O-O-O. Black can usually just take hxg4 because of this and the combined pressure of the bishop on the c8-h3 diagonal and the f6 knight. White can prepare g4, but it could be a bit slow, and Black has an ...h4 defensive idea to take en-passant if needed.

It's like a preventive measure in a sense.

Not exactly, as your rook is on h8, making the h5 push a lot harder for White in O-O-O. Black can usually just take hxg4 because of this and the combined pressure of the bishop on the c8-h3 diagonal and the f6 knight. White can prepare g4, but it could be a bit slow, and Black has an ...h4 defensive idea to take en-passant if needed. It's like a preventive measure in a sense.