Hi chess peeps,

 although I've been playing chess for many years on and off, I'm still relatively mediocre. Recently I have been experimenting with taking two pawns whilst sacrificing a knight. I find it can work quite well, especially if I can stop my opponent from castling in the process. In fairness, I haven't tried it against anyone with a high rating but I would like your opinions on this tactic. Thank you.

Well, two pawns for a knight can be good depending on the position. As you said, you do it to take away your opponents right to castle which if you have a good attack,initiative or compensation of some sort could be lethal. On the otherhand if you cant compensate for the material imbalance or if you lag behind in development etc your just giving your opponent an advantage to some degree.

In general, a knight is worth 3.25 pawns, so this is a poor trade unless there is additional compensation such as exposing the enemy king. Have a look at some Petroff Defense / Cochrane Gambit games... you'll find those interesting. It's basically an opening line where White does exactly that and perhaps will give you some ideas.

counting points and generalizing wich trades are worth doing gets pointless in any real chess game since a positional advantage may be worth sacrificing even the queen for

neneko wrote: counting points and generalizing wich trades are worth doing gets pointless in any real chess game since a positional advantage may be worth sacrificing even the queen for

---

 Yes i do agree. The real advantage/disadvantages lie in the imbalances, rather than ''points''. Sometimes for example a bad bishop in an endgame can be worth nothing at all!

Thanks for your comments, I'll be sure to look at those openings you mentioned Likesforests. What I like about it is the fact that most opponents at my level don't expect it, and it can really throw them. I also find it very satisfying to see the opponents king being chased around the board.

likesforests wrote:

In general, a knight is worth 3.25 pawns, so this is a poor trade unless there is additional compensation such as exposing the enemy king. Have a look at some Petroff Defense / Cochrane Gambit games... you'll find those interesting. It's basically an opening line where White does exactly that and perhaps will give you some ideas.

---

 where did you get a number like 3.25?

 Generally a pawn is worth 1 pt N=3 so your losing 1 pt.  

I think that isn't very relevant though. Its not draughts is it? Ive won (and lost) games over the years, without a piece being captured. Sometimes you can open the opponents defence right up by sacrificing a pawn, however many points its worth.

Sorry, I meant knight, its been a long day!

NorrisB> where did you get a number like 3.25?

 

Larry Kaufman, a chess master and statistician. He analyzed a huge database of games to determine that, on average, a knight is worth 3.25 pawns. 

 

The Evaluation of Material Imbalances is available online.

 

TonyGas> I think that isn't very relevant though. Sometimes you can...

 

Sometimes a pawn is worth a queen. But in general, if you swap a queen for a pawn you're going to lose. Swapping a knight for two pawns is a smaller error, but it's an error unless there's additional compensation to make up for the material loss.

 

TonyGas> What I like about it is the fact that most opponents at my level don't expect it, and it can really throw them.

 

While I sometimes hope my opponent will make a mistake, I only play moves that I consider sound against my opponent's best reply. In the case of minor piece sacrifices, I must see positional compensation. Like exposing the enemy king, when I have pieces nearby that can take place in the attack, to score mate, material, or perpetual check. The exception would be a lost game, because then there's nothing to lose by gambling!

Of course, if this approach is working for you, then that's great.  :)

If you are sacrificing for the pleasure of it, go ahead. If your sac is justified by your opponent's weak play, you probably do not have to sacrifice to win. If you can win minus a piece, you should win with even pieces. It is better to sacrifice the opponent's piece. If you move the sacrificial quadruped repeatedly to capture a pawn or two, without having developed your other forces, your partner may be able to safely consolidate.

Unequal trades can make your opponent think more.  Depends what you do with it I guess.

Great link, likesforests. Thanks.

2 minor pieces for a rook and a pawn never works for me, but in many situations, trading a minor piece for pawn or two is good or necessary. it is all about position when it comes to sac'ing.

Really, it's all about give and take. Would I give up a pawn for better position? Sure, usually. We all would. A knight? Well, the position would have to be pretty damn good. Seems awfully situational.