Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Ridiculous win - but should it have been?


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1

    mattvilla1

    Alright, this game was ridiculous. I played black. I was trying out an unusual opening, I didn't like it and decided 'all or nothing' and made a double knight sacrifice hoping for a quick mate. A couple of blunders on white's part and I got the mate I was looking for -- but should it have worked? Could my position before 18...f3 be seen as better than white's? 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #2

    LAexpress12

    absolutely RIDICULOUS! ok, its wasnt horrible, compared to some other idiots who post games full of holes (me)

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #3

    Sensuinaga

    The way i see it, it was brilliant (im about 1550 rating). because if he doesnt take your bishop with the pawn then you have both rooks skewered and a ton of pressure on his king. 

    Looks good to me.  im no expert but that was a great way of clearing the pavement to get an attack going.

    -Sensuinaga

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #4

    Guolin

    I'm definately no expert, and probably suck more at chess than you do, but maybe a few safer knight moves would have been better. (if your opponent defended correctly, you would be majorly down in material) Your idea was excellent, however.

    Again, though, it was only your opponent's blunders that gave you the win. After the knight sacs, Fritz assessed the game as 6 points ahead for White (which is the amount of material you lost). In fact, at 22...Qa3 White was up by 8 points (he had some serious counterplay according to Fritz, worth almost a Queen). The culprit was of course 23. Rb1???? which turned a massively winning game to a mate in 4.

    If you're curious, here's the line Fritz gave me:

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #5

    mattvilla1

    So the consensus would be that it was even-ish until 18...Nf3, where I would have lost quite quickly if it wasn't for 23.Rb1.

    Maybe I should give myself a little more credit for the first 17 moves =P

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #6

    Guolin

    mattvilla1 wrote:

    Maybe I should give myself a little more credit for the first 17 moves =P


     Indeed. You had tons of pressure on the queenside. There could have been safer ways to exploit that than double knight sacs, and if you played them, you could have had a nice and sound game.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #7

    StillHumble

    psychological warfare ftw

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #8

    Loomis

    Trying to clear the knights off the diagonal at move 18 looks like a good idea, but do you really have to sacrifice them?

    18. ... Nd3 19. Bxd3 Nh5 29. Qf3 Bxc3 30. bxc3 cxd3 looks like an improvement.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #9

    juhweri

    Pretty win, blunderful game by your opponent, but you played like a ~1500 thereCool

    You are going to be something big. The "big" may be a pile of crap, but who knows.. maybe The "big" would be a big chess star Cool


Back to Top

Post your reply: