24 Jan 06
Originally posted by welsharniewhen you about the same rating, you sometimes conceed that your oponent is right.
Just noticed the game. Hasn't black got some winning tries left? Rc6 looks quite useful. Certainly in his position I'd have played and make you prove the draw. When a pawn up in those positions it's usually best to continue to play until the position is stone-dead drawn.
Hard to tell. I can win the h pawn, and check the black king a few times. If my a pawn falls, i could have problems.
His king is better, but i have checking room, and he has to guard his kingside pawns
24 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellSuch words of wisdom, from a 1600. I guess your another "judge of ones abilitys"
You traded queen and rook for queen and rook,
It is stretching the definition of "sacrifice" to the very limit. I would not consider it a true sacrifice if you inevitably equalise the exchange the next move.
As to "I saw that I could win back the queen, and still be a pawn down. That's the intuitive part" - well, I don't know what to say, given that you have aspirations to a 2000-plus rating.
I will make 2000, or better.
I listen to masters analyze, and read a few chess books.
And i use the same jargon they use
The queens gambit involves a sacrifice of a pawn, even though white wins it back. Sometimes it takes a while, sometimes it doe'snt.
Why so picky on the wording?
Is this all you are hung up on?
Maybe its you who wont make 2000..🙄
24 Jan 06
Originally posted by GrandmousterIf you saw that you would get the queen back, that means you visualized the moves in advance, which is calculation, not intuition. Furthermore, it's only 3-4 ply ahead, and it doesn't take 'intuition' to see. Your use of words is merely an attempt to make something as banal as an exchange of pieces sound as brilliant as a long-term sacrifice.
ummm, thats what i thought i did. No rational thought there.
Would you trade down? or play on with heavy pieces?
24 Jan 06
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhy did you offer/accept the draw offer here? I think black should have won this game, am I missing something?
My opponent found a clever rook sacrifice to draw this one: Game 1243139
24 Jan 06
Originally posted by GrandmousterBecause, as BDP said, you made it sound like something it wasn't.
Such words of wisdom, from a 1600. I guess your another "judge of ones abilitys"
I will make 2000, or better.
I listen to masters analyze, and read a few chess books.
And i use the same jargon they use
The queens gambit involves a sacrifice of a pawn, even though white wins it back. Sometimes it takes a while, sometimes it doe'snt.
Why so picky on the wording?
Is this all you are hung up on?
Maybe its you who wont make 2000..🙄
I doubt you would get a master calling this an "intuitive queen sacrifice".
I certainly won't be making 2000; the gap between my current rating of 1700ish and 2000 is huge.
But if this is your idea of an "intuitive queen sacrifice", neither will you.
24 Jan 06
Originally posted by Grandmousterumm... It wasn't very intuitive at all... it was pretty obvious that you would get the queen back. and that move wasn't even the best move in the position, better was Qb4 keeping the queens on the board for a better chance at a draw.
I made what was an intuitive sacrifice.
Just finished this game where we played a tight game. I lost the initive, if i ever even had it?
It looks like i was doomed, but traded down to try to equalize in the endgame.
Anyone have similar games?
Game 1707546
second of all you were still doomed, you are very lucky because youre opponent must have been sick or something because black is still absolutely winning at the end of the game. and there wasn't anything very positional about the way you played. so basically your entire post was wrong.
24 Jan 06
Originally posted by Grandmousterthis is an intuitive knight sacrifice. although it is not positional at all.
I made what was an intuitive sacrifice.
Just finished this game where we played a tight game. I lost the initive, if i ever even had it?
It looks like i was doomed, but traded down to try to equalize in the endgame.
Anyone have similar games?
Game 1707546
Game 827583
take notes on that one.
24 Jan 06
Originally posted by GrandmousterSurely if you take the h pawn after Rc6, Rc2+ forces your K onto the back rank, and after Rxa2 you will be too tied up satopping yourself getting back rank mated to stop the passed a pawn.
when you about the same rating, you sometimes conceed that your oponent is right.
Hard to tell. I can win the h pawn, and check the black king a few times. If my a pawn falls, i could have problems.
His king is better, but i have checking room, and he has to guard his kingside pawns
Even if you don't take on h5, and check instead, the balck K can move for cover, and I think the a pawn will still fall. This passed pawn, so far away from the rest of the action will surely give black the win. (I will have a look with a board myself once I get home, as endgames like that are very hard to calculate entirely in one's head.)
25 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by GrandmousterBut in your first post you said "intuitive sacrifice". Sorry, but that's very misleading. It is essentially a trade of queens, initiated by a tactical combination. The part which you're claiming to be intuitive isn't the sacrifice itself; obviously you saw that you would get his queen 2 moves later (if you didn't, you're a lot further off from an expert rating than you think you are). The intuitive part is deducing that you might have a better chance of drawing the game if it were simplifed down. So, "intuitive sacrifice" is wholly inaccurate. More approprite might be "intuitive exchange" or "intuitive simplification".
ummm, thats what i thought i did. No rational thought there.
Would you trade down? or play on with heavy pieces?
EDIT: Sorry, didn't even notice there was another page to this thread. But I'd also like to point out that the title of your thread is "A positional Queen sacrifce to draw". When I hear something like that, I think of something like saccing a queen for two pieces or something along those lines, like the game SicilianSmaug posted. It hardly brings to mind a forced tactical (READ: not positional) combination which trades off the queens and a pair of rooks.
25 Jan 06
Thread summary
1. Not positional
2. Not intuative
3. Not a sac (please don't debate this,it just makes you look stupid for not being able to see 1 move into the future, A sac is a material loss accepted in exchange for other compensation, i.e. the ability to avoid a mate, to create an outpost square for your knight, to gain the initiative, to open up a kings position etc.).
25 Jan 06
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugSmaug, I do believe that Matheson could have played 35. .. Rb8! with winning chances.
This is quite an interesting one Game 1650161 Move 26 i offered my queen for rook and bishop. i saw that the end game was going to be at a disadvantage for me so i thought id give it a go. I got the draw, but my opponent missed an opportunity to win it ( i think, cant remember how now 😕)