Hi Moon.
"What other insight to you have about how to decide whether to do a sac
if no forced mate?"
That is a tough one.
If it looks interesting and it is not too daft then I'm usually up for it.
A lot are proved unsound in the analysis room but that is the analysis room.
I've never been interested in producing the perfect game, (it has never been
played as far as I'm concerned.)
I play on the fact my opponent WILL make an error. I just have to spot
it when it happens. I just need to nudge him into blunderland.
I've been lucky on many occassions or my opponent has been unlucky.
(take your pick.)
Two OTB games. (I have loads of games like these on my CV.)
The first I sacced because I felt at least I have a perpetual.
R.Ford - G.Chandler Edinburgh Club CHampionship 1994
G.Chandler - R.Austion Edinburgh C.C. 1980
You will enjoy this. I did.
This is a game I won in round 2 of my very first appearance in the Open Section of a big tournament. I was 2-0 at the end of the day, and tied with several 2300+ Masters, which led my my getting absolutely thrashed the very next day!
At the time, I thought my sacrifice of the d3 pawn was inspired, and that my subsequent play proved its soundness. My idea was that the quick movement of the a1 rook to the d-file, coupled with the queen on g4 (with additional pressure on the weak e6 square), would give me pressure on the d7 square and the a2-g8 diagonal. I could control the d-file and get a rook on the 7th as compensation-not to mention the possibility of picking off one or more queenside pawns.
I was more ambitious and naive in those days!
As my knowledge and experience grew, I later thought that it merely made my opponent careless, and let me pull off a quick crush.
With the luxury of computer aided analysis these days, I now see that the game was much closer, until my opponent erred on move 21- which neither of us saw as the critical point at the time!
I got married a few months after this game, and my rating climb promptly ended, and even declined a bit. You choose one mate, and you sacrifice another!
Originally posted by moon1969Duh now I see why he didn't castle on move 6. I was threatening his B, and thus my 6.Qh5 move makes more sense. The game was a long time ago.
Anyway, below is a game in the first RHP tournament I won, and in which my opponent was strong but he did not appear to make the best moves in this game. I as white did a B sac on his weak f7 square, and mated him on move 20.
[pgn][Event "October 2010 Mini Banded Octet II 1800-1900"]
[Site "http://www.redhotpawn.com"]
[Date "2010.11.10"]
[EndDate " ...[text shortened]... up for the mate with a check.} 19. Bh6g5 Kd8e8 20. Qg7e7 1-0[/pgn]
Originally posted by greenpawn34In the first game, as black I can see being enticed to sac when white has made too many pawns moves and black has more material developed, and especially if you (black) at least have a draw (perpetual) in the bag.
Hi Moon.
"What other insight to you have about how to decide whether to do a sac
if no forced mate?"
That is a tough one.
If it looks interesting and it is not too daft then I'm usually up for it.
A lot are proved unsound in the analysis room but that is the analysis room.
I've never been interested in producing the perfect game, (it has ne hat happened. That took the point. No points for what might have happened.}[/pgn]
In the second game, you posting your B at c7 to stop the castle, I like doing an annoying move to stop or slow a castle.
Yet, that is a minor point I guess. Maybe not, though, as it help keep black's king exposed in the center of the 8th rank. Anyway, it is entire game that is nice and fun as you say. Enjoyable to play through.
I wish I had my games from 1980.
Originally posted by Paul LeggettThat was ambitious giving up your d3 pawn for position and a possible attack, which you explain well, and which came to fruition. I have a hard time giving up a pawn. White to move.
This is a game I won in round 2 of my very first appearance in the Open Section of a big tournament. I was 2-0 at the end of the day, and tied with several 2300+ Masters, which led my my getting absolutely thrashed the very next day!
At the time, I thought my sacrifice of the d3 pawn was inspired, and that my subsequent play proved its soundness. M Red1 Qf8 21. Qg4 f5 22. Qc4 Re8 23. Rxb7 e4 24. Rdd7 e3 25. Rxf7 1-0[/pgn]
Your move 22.Qc4 pinned his rook which can't be immediately relieved. Nice. Black to move.
Like all of us, I love getting a rook on the 7th rank, but awesomely you got both of them on the 7th rank and threatening the pinned rook, and as an aside recovered your pawn by picking up his b7 pawn (but of course he black has more to worry about). Black to move.
Ouch. I assume this was the end of the game.
Giving up your d3 pawn did at least in part allow your rook to grab the d-file and gain a tempo, and contributed to the dream scenario of you getting both rooks on the 7th rank. Black to move.
Nice game.
Lastly, you and GP allude to missed points associated with engine analysis, but while engine analysis may be interesting and helpful in post-game analysis, it is not much in my opinion to judge the game or a specific move, because during a game for a specific move an engine is really no good outside of a blunder check. Not only would it take away from the fun of the game, engine analyzing a single move during a game could lead one down an obscure or awkward or even dead-end path, unless of course you use the engine for every subsequent move. When I look at club-level play, I don't really even think about how an engine may have had a better move.
"I wish I had my games from 1980."
You have done it again.
Well not you, I should say I have just been reminded again of a very sad day.
I kept of a record of all my games and even wrote down the interesting skittles
games (Botvinnik again.) But I have lost a score book containing serious OTB
games from 1981 - 1984. I have some from that period because I used 3
or four note books and few were printed.
But there were some smashing games in that boook. I still think about them
and I can recall certain positions, but the names, place and dates......😳
My mention of engines was to point out that if I show a game I have won
and someone says Fritz says.... or Rybka can show....etc. I am not interested.
(unless one finds a super duper winning combo) I won. The End.
One more OTB game featuring a spec sac, a blunder and spec sac activity.
At one point I'm 3 pieces down and I sac my Queen.
I put this game in the book I co-wrote 'Master Chess.'
G.Chandler - Dr.Ratcliffe. Edinburgh Chess League 1983.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Games like that belong in books. Well done!
"I wish I had my games from 1980."
You have done it again.
Well not you, I should say I have just been reminded again of a very sad day.
I kept of a record of all my games and even wrote down the interesting skittles
games (Botvinnik again.) But I have lost a score book containing serious OTB
games from 1981 - 1984. I have some from that perio ...[text shortened]... .. Qe7 22. gxh8=Q Nxe3 23. Qxg8+ Kd7 24. e6+ Qxe6 25. Qxe6+ Kxe6 26. Rbe1 {Perfect.}[/pgn]
Originally posted by moon1969For me, an engine move is just another opinion for me to consider. Its an algorithm written by a strong player, and the computer uses it's calculating power to apply the algorithm.
That was ambitious giving up your d3 pawn for position and a possible attack, which you explain well, and which came to fruition. I have a hard time giving up a pawn. White to move.
[fen]r4rk1/pp4pp/2p2p2/2b1p3/8/2PqBQPP/PP3P2/R3R1K1 w - - 0 17[/fen]
Your move 22.Qc4 pinned his rook which can't be immediately relieved. Nice. Black to move.
[fen]r4q ...[text shortened]... at club-level play, I don't really even think about how an engine may have had a better move.
I'll consider an idea from anyone, and hopefully learn from it.
In the game, I think it was when my opponent played ...f6 that got my attention. I had recently read and played through a Larsen game in the KIA where he talked about dark and light squares, and the light squares in my game sort of metaphorically glowed after ...f6.
In fact, I should add that I exchanged the e3 bishop for black's c5 bishop mainly so I could distract the black queen from the light squares to the dark squares. I saw it as increasing my control of the light squares, and possibly gaining a tempo since the queen would have to move to control a light squared diagonal.
It's rare to be able to enact a plan and follow it unhindered to fruition, which is why the game is memorable for me. And it did end on move 25, which was a bonus.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Nice game GP
"I wish I had my games from 1980."
You have done it again.
Well not you, I should say I have just been reminded again of a very sad day.
I kept of a record of all my games and even wrote down the interesting skittles
games (Botvinnik again.) But I have lost a score book containing serious OTB
games from 1981 - 1984. I have some from that perio ...[text shortened]... .. Qe7 22. gxh8=Q Nxe3 23. Qxg8+ Kd7 24. e6+ Qxe6 25. Qxe6+ Kxe6 26. Rbe1 {Perfect.}[/pgn]
Originally posted by nimzo5The pin on c4 is the idea behind Qg4, but the real kicker is that white gets away with it because Qg4 also threatens a queen visitation on e6- basically, black can't cover e6 and c4.
Nice use of the pin! on 22. Qc4!
I believe the sac of the d-pawn probably comes as no surprise to anyone who plays the KID, because it is a theme in the King's Indian, so it's probably more thematic than brilliant, now that I think about it!
Originally posted by Paul LeggettAnd here I thought I was blundering the pawn away and then pulling out some wins. 😞
The pin on c4 is the idea behind Qg4, but the real kicker is that white gets away with it because Qg4 also threatens a queen visitation on e6- basically, black can't cover e6 and c4.
I believe the sac of the d-pawn probably comes as no surprise to anyone who plays the KID, because it is a theme in the King's Indian, so it's probably more thematic than brilliant, now that I think about it!
Originally posted by ChessPraxisHeck, GM Joe Gallagher got a variation of the defense named after him for it! I suppose the big deal was that he decided to do it before the game started, instead of during the game.
And here I thought I was blundering the pawn away and then pulling out some wins. 😞
Of course, there's always the possibility that a dyslexic Benko Gambit player got his b- and d- pawns confused...
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20026
Hey GP,
if you don't mind, I'd like to try 9. Qf3+ here.
I have been analyzing a lot of lines here, and they all seem to save the knight or better. I hope I didn't miss some obvious refutation here, but someone will point it out then anyway. I'll give an overview.
What will black do to get out of check?:
- capture the queen: no way
- move the king: not to e8, this is mate (see diagram)
- move the king: to e7? (see diagram)
- interpose with another piece: Q? (see diagram)
- interpose with another piece: N? (see diagram)
- again interposing with the knight, but now with c5 to stop the second check.
I just want to add one more thought. If in the last line, black would play Nxe4 at some point further on, we have Qf3+ and QxNe4.
What do you think?
HI TV.
All these lines look like they have something but in all cases
Black is still better and I had to select how better I wanted Black to be.
You will have to remember my 0-0 was a complete blunder. I pondered resigning.
It took a while to compose myself.
I recall the bemused looks from my team mates. Some were not to pleased,
I was about to put them all 1-0 down.
Players in the other team were smirking. It put pressure on my team to pull it back.
I went for the Ba3+ and pawn storm line because it seemed to me to offer
the best practical OTB chances of clouding the issue.
After the match, which we won. During the post analyse I remembering saying
something like "I though I'd give you all fright so you would have to put some
life into your games." But I was lucky....very lucky.....good game though.
Thanks for looking. Looks like you enjoyed yourself pulling poking the position
about. You learn things doing that. I did it/do it all the time.