13290 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I was once taught that sacrificing exchange for gaining compensation in return, going on and gambiting a couple of pawns for a positional gain, or sacrificing pawns to gain activity was good.
But I was not comfortable being down on material. I always think that my opponent's plan was to exchange pieces, reach an endgame with a winning game for him and so on.
How to change this mindset?
IM pfren showed that game once... (if helps)
Good game! He sacrifice a queen for the initiative, and that initiative was being converted to a win.
I am not very comfortable being down on material. In fact the one thing that has recently increased my win ratio was to not gamble pieces for position. In almost every game my opponent does this I come out on the win side. I can think of some exchanges in the pirc defense where white takes two pawns on b5 for a minor piece usually a knight and does not magage to gain any real advantage. Considering I play at an ametuer level risking a full piece without a clear mating pattern to follow is a dangerous proposition. If the opponent manages to fall back and equalize come the endgame I will be wishing I had the extra material.. Is there some study material to sharpen this instinct or is it more a situational opening particular type thing?
Personally I enjoy being down, I find it sharpens my play and has increased my success both online and OTB. Sacrificing a pawn or piece, if you have a plan, can be quite helpful. But without a plan and reason for the loss of material then you are simply giving the opponent a handicap
Sort of. I did not sacrifice anything really, a GM had shown me this line some twenty five years ago. Currently it should be considered as a book line.
It does sort of shock the unsuspecting eye! but with Bb5+ I can see where it becomes more of a line. As you consider it a book line is the capture of blacks queen forced from move 6?
It truely depends on your game style. I know some people who can sacrifice a queen or rook and win with ease and others who will trade only when absolutely necessary and are rated 1900+ FIDE.
Also, you must be able to read the board and determine the best strategy. As MichaelPorcelli said, "without a plan and reason for the loss of material then you are simply giving the opponent a handicap". There are some good routines that losing a rook for huge gain in developement is advantageous (such as the Trexlar Counter Attack), but you need to know what you are doing.
If you need help knowing when to play aggressively and where to focus your attacks, I recommend reading IM Jeremy Silman's book: The Ameteur's Mind, Turning Chess Misconceptions Into Chess Mastery. I am only part way through and it has greatly helped my games.
Example of a game I played with the Trexlar Counter Attack:
No, it isn't. However, things are pretty grim for Black:
With all four of white's minor pieces menacing Black's king, the game should not last long. An engine after some thought evaluates +1.32, which surely enough is an understatement: Black is totally lost.
The line played is "better", yet Black has severe issues with his kings safety as well as his development. The whole line is probably winning by force for white.
After this game I found out that Andrew Greet suggests this line for white in his book on "irregular" openings.
Aggressive players who rather choose initiative than material is a good type of this play. Like Garry Kasparov who sacrifice two or more pieces to gain strong initiative.
I think what important is we can weigh the advantage to know which is better on the specific position.
This is one of my favorite games from Kasparov.
That game was just beautiful. He knew somewhere in the middle of the game that it would end up with his opponents Kingside just decimated. So he traded towards having two Bishops as they would be more powerful in that position. White's two Rooks just standby sucking their thumbs as the King sweats it out behind his lady.
Oh and uh...I am perfectly comfortable being down on material and love how exciting a game can become when, even down a Queen, you start pushing back out of that corner and push your opponent into one. Tactical euphoria that is.
2 bishops against 2 rooks? Good game indeed by kasparov.
Is it possible to make true (and real) friendship between two chess players?
by hapless_fool a few minutes ago
7/26/2014 - Saonina-Tjekova 1980
by que2filip 5 minutes ago
by mrhjornevik 8 minutes ago
Time Control Changes?
by Barnstorm 14 minutes ago
7/7/2014 - Too Far From Home
by sherwinm 18 minutes ago
Arena 3.5 question
by fperez45078 22 minutes ago
7/17/2014 - In The Line of Fire
by sherwinm 23 minutes ago
Ruth Haring: 'Girls are bad at chess'
by EulerTheToiler 26 minutes ago
7/18/2014 - Hamann-BrinckClaussen, Hastings 1962
by sherwinm 27 minutes ago
How to play the QGA?
by TheGreatOogieBoogie 27 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!