I play the samish. One of my favorite lines to play as white.
THE SICILIAN DRAGON
Sort:
Oldest
Yes I like the Samisch. Still gives me a big attack without as big of a headache on the queenside due to the fact that he has to prepare b5.
I love Samisch, but I hate the Dragon.
Like the dragon. Got a puzzle on it if any of you are interested, called 'The dragon bites back
Check out THE DRAGON BITES members.
No one has stepped up and said they play both the King's Indian and the Dragon with Black.
So how about the Benko Gambit and the Dragon?
I play both. Against 1.e4 I play the Sicilian Dragon and against 1.d4 I play the King's Indian Na6 variation.
They have much more in common than the Yugoslav and Samisch variations, they both in fact require the same type of tactical keeness to triumph
I don't necessarily play the king's indian as black. I prefer the nimzo-indian. However, I do play the pseudo king's indian as black (1. d4-Nf6 2. Nf3-g6). I sometimes play the Dragon as black, but I also like playing the Najdorf and Sheveningen.
BillyIdle wrote:
No one has stepped up and said they play both the King's Indian and the Dragon with Black.
So how about the Benko Gambit and the Dragon?
I play the Benko and have recently been trying the Dragon. Funny thing is, the Dragon is one of those where you can find yourself in hot water if you make a wrong move, while the Benko almost plays itself. Must be because of the sacrificed pawn, especially when it is accepted, in the Benko.
I also use the Benko Gambit and find that most players are unprepared for it. They expect a nimzo-indian or king's indian.
The more I play, the less I want to even begin fighting from move one. I prefer to develop with patterns I know, and look to exploit weaknesses next. For instance, in the Bird, the idea isn't win from move one, but to secure e5. From there, once I have developed, I can scope out what my opponent has played, and adjust my plan accordingly. I like flexible chess - if I don't play loose like that, my opponent knows what I am going to play. Kind of like this old saying -
"How can he know what I am going to play? I don't know what I am going to play!" :-)
I played earlier against chesspartner and used the Stonewall against it. I won by creating two connected passed queenside pawns, and I supported them with my pieces. Maybe not a blow-apart game, but it was a good win.
Of course it depends on my mood also - I like King's Gambit too! Just depends on how you play, for how I am gonna play!
I have found that some Dragon players are also King's Indian players. In one respect The Sicilian Dragon and King's Indian Defenses have something in common - the similarity between the Yugoslav Attack in the Dragon and the Saemisch Variation of the King's Indian. As Black a player one could be comfortable if the player of the White pieces would always accomodate us. When White fianchettos against the King's Indian, or plays the more Karpovian, pedestrian main lines against the Dragon I start to fall asleep.
Petursson, the Icelandic grandmaster once said that when he played Kasparov he knew Gary wanted to annihilate him, and when he played Karpov "nothing special happens, but you lose". That is how it is. I prefer the "We live in fame, go down in flame" approach to the careful approach. I prefer the Yugoslav Attack and the Saemisch Variation with Black or White. Fischer made the comment that he hated boring chess. Chess should be fun. I am very comfortable with the Polugayevsky Variation of the Sicilian and would rather play that against an opponent who won't play the White side of the Yugoslav Attack. Certain openings suit our temperment. I am not necessarily a Sicilian player but like exciting games, regardless of the risks, when not playing tournament chess anyway. There is less to lose. So....who among you plays the Saemisch and the Yugoslav Attack? Or plays against it?