Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Nice Bishop sac


  • 5 years ago · Quote · #1

    Arv123

    Here is a game I played on the ICC. Comments would be greatly appreciated.

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #2

    Daniel3

    Looks like a good game. I like the way you broke through Black's structure. However, 22.f6 followed by Qg3+ would have given you a forced mate on g7.

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #3

    Arv123

    If 22. f6, Kh8 23. Qg3 Rg8 and nothing is gained

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #4

    Daniel3

    If 22...Kh8, then you reply 23.Qh3 instead og Qg3. Either way, you will still mate.

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #6

    RainbowRising

    Daniel3 wrote:

    If 22...Kh8, then you reply 23.Qh3 instead og Qg3. Either way, you will still mate.


    You are wrong. I looked and I cant find a mate. His play was better.

    Here is my bishop sac in a one minute game against a CM:

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #8

    Daniel3

    The mate doesn't only have to be with the Queen. you could bring your King's Rook into the fight a few moves later, too. I'm just pointing out that 22.f6 would be a nice blocking move that would eventually end in mate; even if the Black Rook is brought to g8 since you have a Rook to oppose it.

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #9

    RainbowRising

    Daniel3 wrote:

    The mate doesn't only have to be with the Queen. you could bring your King's Rook into the fight a few moves later, too. I'm just pointing out that 22.f6 would be a nice blocking move that would eventually end in mate; even if the Black Rook is brought to g8 since you have a Rook to oppose it.


    When you signed up to chess.com, did you forget to put GM at the front of your name?

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #10

    Daniel3

    I'm not sure what you mean.

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #11

    Jitesh

    Black cannot play 20...Qf6 since black pawn occupies f6 square..isn't it?

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #12

    Arv123

    Jitesh wrote:

    Black cannot play 20...Qf6 since black pawn occupies f6 square..isn't it?


     In the second game not, but the first game yes.

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #13

    RainbowRising

    Daniel3 wrote:

    I'm not sure what you mean.


    I mean you're an argumentative, stubborn, ignorant little twerp who is arguing with myself and a NM, both of whom have more and significantly more knowledge than you, respectively. Is that clear enough for you to understand?

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #14

    Daniel3

    I don't know who the hell you think you are, sir, but I have every right to say whatever I want to on an open forum. If I think one line brings victory, I have every right to post it to the original poster of this topic. I am only stating my opinion and if other poeple don't agree with it then it's their problem and not mine. I am not arguing with anybody, so shut your mouth!

    Who's arrogant now? "Significantly more knowledge than you" my ass! I can post any lines and analysis I want on this site, and I don't give a F*** what you think of it. I never asked for your advice and I don't want it.

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #15

    TheGrobe

    RainbowRising wrote:
    Daniel3 wrote:

    I'm not sure what you mean.


    I mean you're an argumentative, stubborn, ignorant little twerp who is arguing with myself and a NM, both of whom have more and significantly more knowledge than you, respectively. Is that clear enough for you to understand?


    Knowledge of what?  Certainly not of how to prepare a constructive argument instead of simply lashing out with ad hominem attacks or of how to generally act in a civil manner in a public forum.

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #16

    RainbowRising

    Daniel3 wrote:

    I don't know who the hell you think you are, sir, but I have every right to say whatever I want to on an open forum. If I think one line brings victory, I have every right to post it to the original poster of this topic. I am only stating my opinion and if other poeple don't agree with it then it's their problem and not mine. I am not arguing with anybody, so shut your mouth!

    Who's arrogant now? "Significantly more knowledge than you" my ass! I can post any lines and analysis I want on this site, and I don't give a F*** what you think of it. I never asked for your advice and I don't want it.


    Fine. If you want the right to argue, it's yours. You can be wrong and argue. And there is no opinion with forced mate, it's a fact - either it is , or it isn't.

    If you wish to stay 1400, continue.

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #17

    Kupov

    If you are basing him against your own rating than he is probably significantly lower than 1400, CC ratings being very inflated compared to live ratings.

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #18

    RainbowRising

    Kupov wrote:

    If you are basing him against your own rating than he is probably significantly lower than 1400, CC ratings being very inflated compared to live ratings.


    Finally, someone with enough balls to stand up to people who are wrong and use the so called 'right to an opinion' to aruge that they are right.

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #19

    RainbowRising

    TheGrobe wrote:
    RainbowRising wrote:
    Daniel3 wrote:

    I'm not sure what you mean.


    I mean you're an argumentative, stubborn, ignorant little twerp who is arguing with myself and a NM, both of whom have more and significantly more knowledge than you, respectively. Is that clear enough for you to understand?


    Knowledge of what?  Certainly not of how to prepare a constructive argument instead of simply lashing out with ad hominem attacks or of how to generally act in a civil manner in a public forum.


    Knowledge of chess. My argument is perfectly logical. I did not lash out, I picked my words carefully:

    Argumentative: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argumentative?qsrc=2888
    He argues continuously, even when he has nothing to back it with.

    Stubborn: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stubborn?qsrc=2888

    He is clearly wrong, but won't change his ways.

    Ignorant: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant?qsrc=2888

    Not acknowledging the fact that there are moves that prevent 'forced mate', yet still arguing the point.

    Twerp: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/twerp?qsrc=2888

    No explanation needed. See above.

    Q.E.D.

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #20

    Daniel3

    I don't see what works you up so much about this. You are immature and stupid.

    I have posted analysis that is free for comment, but instead you resort to using personal insults and rantings. You are more childish than a 16-year-old (me); all you have done is attack me without reason. I wasn't arguing with anybody and you never proved me wrong in anything yet. I don't see why anybody should listen to someone who hasn't got the balls to refute what a 16-year-old is saying but instead lashes out at him with dumb insults. You're pathetic and I don't see why I should continue talking to you anymore.

    This is still a free forum and I can post my analysis wherever I please. If that bothers you so much than maybe you're on the wrong site? This is about chess, remember? Not about your pre-period "low time".


Back to Top

Post your reply: