Bishop's Opening | DUAL Bishop Sacrifice!
#bishopsopening #bishopsacrifice
I have a particular fondness of bishop sacrifices where they are used as long-range assassins, smashing through the opponent king's defences! This game was special in that there was a DUAL sacrifice!
My opponent led with the Bishop's Opening (1. e4 e5 2. Bc4). Stockfish considers that (2... Nf6) is the best response but I usually play 2... Nc6). My rationale? This opening is potentially quite trappy for White, but after Nc6, the clear best move for White is (3. Nf3), which simply transposes back to the Italian Game. My logic, however, is that White doesn't want to play the Italian (which is why they led with the Bishop's Opening), so if we end up in an Italian, I'm not disadvantaged. If they try to avoid the Italian and play anything else, there is often an advantage to Black by simply developing and playing according to standard opening principles.
Interestingly, White attempted a waiting move with (3. a3). I couldn't see anything obviously exploitable so simply developed my other knight, potentially slightly up some tempo.
Both of us tread carefully in the opening, with no trades or captures. On move 9, White castles kingside, and I see a potential strategy. Although White had castled, I was up on development. This had occurred because White had made some pawn moves and had opted to "preventively" move their light square bishop onto a2. White's knight on f3 was their only "real" developed piece. None of their other pieces had developed. Their bishop on a2 was set up to attack but couldn't defend their its king. So, I play (9... Qd7) and line up a bishop-queen battery down the light square diagonal staring at White's pawn on h3, getting ready for an immediate massive attack on the Black king's position and keeping my king in the centre!
White potentially didn't see my impending tactic of smashing their kingside pawns and played another relatively slow developing move of (10. Re1). This was an inaccuracy as the pawn on f2 was now not only pinned to the king but had the king as its only defender.
I strike - bishop sacrifice (Bxh3)! Stockfish calls this a mistake as the engine can defend this, but it's not so easy for a human! After the trades (11. gxh3 Qxh3), I've lost one bishop, but White's king side defence is dangerously damaged with missing h- and g-pawns, and my queen is now staring at the gaping hole that was once the "walls" of the king's castle. White attempts to shore up defences with a backwards knight move (12. Nh2), which also opens up the diagonal for White's queen to join the fray.
However, while attention was drawn to that side of the board, White neglected my second bishop, staring at f2. I strike again - bishop sacrifice (Bxf2+)! After the trades (13. Kxf2 Qxh2+), White's king is now completely exposed. His castle is demolished - all three kingside pawns are gone, and their backwards knight has also been demolished. More than that, all of White's pieces are still on the back rank, except for the bishop languishing on a2, cut off from the rest of the army.
The following position wasn't the easiest to play, but it was easier for me than White. I had plenty of time to calculate and eventually discovered an [-M4] after my knight joined up with my queen for the attack. On move 19, White opted to resign recognising that they could only delay mate by one turn. GG!
Game on chess.com: https://www.chess.com/game/live/75616205559
