Stunning Sacrifice Combination Checkmate Brilliancy

Thank you Paul for taking the time to post the insightful analysis.  

I see how it would have required a totally different approach had black opened per your alternate variations.

I don't yet see how Nxf4 gives the advantage to black with both the queen and knight on the 2nd rank protecting the square without threat on the recapture. Did I miss it?

And 15...Yes, I am not sure why he waited until move 17 to play b5 because by that time, I'd already advanced the pawn to clear room for the bishop.

I can only speculate the 15.Rh1 distracted him and he thought he needed to bring the knight closer in response for reinforcement on his kingside?

About 27...g6!!

Yes, for sure.

That would definitely cause me to readjust my attack there. I'm so glad he moved the knight there instead of the pawn.

I played through the alternate mates from 30 and it helps give a more comprehensive perspective for sure, so thanks for that.

Thanks again! 

Cute mate in 2?  Yes.  Stunning brilliancy?...er, not really.

@Paul I see this now, but didn't before.  Man, feedback from much better players is definitely the most valuable. Thank you again sir!

And those words of encouragement about dividends and my heart being in the right place made my knight...thanks!

@Andy Too true. I was having a little fun and probably too pleased with the rook sacrifice to mate and guess I was a bit over the top with the thread title.  Your story has touched my heart.

I have taken your correction on board and will now attempt to reflect the true essence of the match with a more accurate thread title. Be right back, editing thread title. Thanks again for the reality checkmate.

*Update: The thread title has now been successfully renamed. Please no longer refer to the less than stunning rook sacrifice to checkmate 2 move mate combination as a brilliancy. If you do, I will not respond and I also encourage others not to respond to anyone who does so or makes any statements which could be construed as anything other than just a cute mate in 2. Thank you for your kind cooperation and happy mating. Well, you know what I mean.

Here is the new official thread newly titled to satisfy demand from top contributors:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/just-a-cute-mate-in-2

Great finishing off, but honestly and with all sympathy, if this combination would not have saved you, you would have lost the game because your opening is not great. You keep giving away material and positional value, which would most probably get you killed. The mate combination is however à stunner and THE winner takes all!

It's too late, we're all much more amused by this title.

Yeah, come to think of it, I am too (and bronsteinitz even believed you!). 

Sympathy should be reserved for the one who lost the match, don't you think? lol.

I gave away material only to advance my attack plan, which if I may remind you, was successful!

Isn't the goal to win?

Aside from the final rook which I sacrificed for the mate, I was only down like 3 pawns and only because I focused on the victory!

I'm not knocking your very valid feedback and I actually agree with most of it.

(Especially the part where it is acknowledged and accepted that...

"...the mate combination however is a stunner and THE winner takes all!"- Bronsteinitz

You certainly are facile with words on a higher level and I know what you mean about the stunner part.

I mean, you could almost just hear the opponent's internal dialogue saying,

"I don't believe it. I'm stunned."

Thank you for seeing how the opening and middle game play all fulfilled its role in leading up to making the final mate combination all the more impactful.

I'm not sure everyone has the overall vision to see how if I had played the opening and middlegame better, it wouldn't have quite been as dramatic and is all part of the aesthetic or style if you will.

@Theoreticalboy -- Is it true that if Pinnochio were only a theoretical boy instead of a real live boy, he would play the Giuoco Piano? Someone once suggested this was the case but their nose was growing so I didn't receive it as gospel. By the way, thank you for the valuable feedback on the response to the thread title...I will save this threadline in my swipe file in the "threadlines that amuse" category for future use...thanks!

@Andy Okay, the big guy has spoken. We will now revert back to the original threadline for use of discussion. (*threadline= combination of the words headline and thread title).

Hmm, I think he'd play the Parham, as it's theoretically good, according to these forums.

Frankly, "threadline" is a beautiful neologism. 

lol. Classic. And not the scholar's mate or fool's mate? But what if you encounter someone who really knows what they're doing? Surely you'd need one of the aforementioned if there are too many lines and variations in the Parham. I never understood why the Parham took so long to attack. I guess it is more for the positional players who prefer to postpone the action in favor of more sharp lines and sound play, slowing eeking out an advantage with an even chance for both. 

@Andy -- And Neologism would make a beautiful threadline! 

But in all seriousness, thanks for enjoying the rook sac mate with me and the fun discussion. Enjoyed it.

I'll refrain from posting "The Game of the Millenium" next time since you were such good sports with humoring me on this one. lol.

this is a good game analysis

Please post more often. You are a credit to this community. 

> 18. Bd3nah...I only make him think so. I actually make this very aggressive attack look like I'm retreating, don't I? Is there a word for this?

Yes. A feigned retreat.