13 Apr 07
Originally posted by zebanoThe one that wins the game - checkmate! 😛
Mine happens to be the clearance sacrifice. The is an awesome exaple in one of the games from Bronstein's Zurich 1954 book but I can't recall which (of course, it also involved a few other tactics along the way, but that stood out).
Uh, I don't really have a favorite tactic though, I just like when I'm the one that makes use of them.
13 Apr 07
Originally posted by leisurelyslothThat is really very Nice!!!
You'll love this one then. Game 2230972
I hate Queens Sacs!!!
😠Game 3431624
It seems so obvious afterwards!!
An 1800 like player myself falling for this .
The shame and embarassmentI feel...
13 Apr 07
Originally posted by najdorfslayerThat's a fork...
That is really very Nice!!!
I hate Queens Sacs!!!
😠Game 3431624
It seems so obvious afterwards!!
An 1800 like player myself falling for this .
The shame and embarassmentI feel...
13 Apr 07
Originally posted by najdorfslayerYeah, but is a 'queen sac' really considered a tactic if you don't follow it up with a tactic (i.e. a fork)? For example, in a game I just finished I played a positional exchange sac., but I wouldn't call that a tactic:
No s*?t Sherlock!!
It's was forking annoying I know that!
[Event "Rated game, 3m + 0s"]
[Site "Main Playing Hall"]
[Date "2007.04.13"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Arawaks"]
[Black "CMSMaster"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1416"]
[BlackElo "1435"]
[PlyCount "52"]
[EventDate "2007.04.13"]
[TimeControl "180"]
1. e4 {0} c5 {1} 2. Nf3 {6} d6 {1} 3. d4 {1} cxd4 {1} 4. Nxd4 {1} Nf6 {0} 5.
Nc3 {1} g6 {2} 6. Bb5+ {3} Bd7 {2} 7. O-O {3} Bg7 {1} 8. Bg5 {5} O-O {6} 9.
Bxd7 {2} Nbxd7 {3} 10. Re1 {3} Ne5 {2} 11. Nf3 {5} Qa5 {5} 12. a3 {19} Rac8 {2}
13. Rc1 {2} Rxc3 {4} 14. bxc3 {7} Qxc3 {1} 15. Nxe5 {3} Qxe5 {6} 16. Bxf6 {4}
Bxf6 {2} 17. Qf3 {2} Qa5 {4} 18. Ra1 {3} Bxa1 {3} 19. Rxa1 {1} Rc8 {2} 20. Qe2
{7} Qc3 {3} 21. Rc1 {10} Qxa3 {2} 22. c4 {1} Qxc1+ {2} 23. Qf1 {3} Rxc4 {4} 24.
f4 {6} Qe3+ {6} 25. Kh1 {7} Rc1 {2} 26. Qxc1 {0} Qxc1# {
(Lag: Av=0.61s, max=4.6s) 1} 0-1
Although I did miss the really obvious Nxc3+! discovered attack tactic multiple times in that game...
13 Apr 07
Originally posted by cmsMasterI suppose you are right!
Yeah, but is a 'queen sac' really considered a tactic if you don't follow it up with a tactic (i.e. a fork)? For example, in a game I just finished I played a positional exchange sac., but I wouldn't call that a tactic:
[Event "Rated game, 3m + 0s"]
[Site "Main Playing Hall"]
[Date "2007.04.13"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Arawaks"]
[Black "CMSMaster"]
...[text shortened]... vious Nxc3+! discovered attack tactic multiple times in that game...
If you don't follow up a Queens Sac with a bloody good tactic haven't you just blunderd your queen?
13 Apr 07
Originally posted by najdorfslayerNot necessarily, the sac could really screw up the opponents pawn structure or something - but that's generally hard to do for a queen.
I suppose you are right!
If you don't follow up a Queens Sac with a bloody good tactic haven't you just blunderd your queen?
13 Apr 07
Originally posted by cmsMasterFricken get over yourself. I am sick to death of this petty argument. The guy looked hard enough to play QxN. That is worth something in my book.
[b]Yeah, but is a 'queen sac' really considered a tactic if you don't follow it up with a tactic (i.e. a fork)? For example, in a game I just finished I played a positional exchange sac., but I wouldn't call that a tactic:
13 Apr 07
1 edit
Games like this one are why I love the pin so much! 😀 Game 2840062 although, the only reason it worked so well was because my opponent let it happen.