sacrifice

question for the people who are really good. I don't see anybody else playing with the way I like to play.. caveat... I'm not good. I make a lot of mistakes. I have ADD and I get careless. and by this I mean.... I can't stand I have a game that's locked up where neither side has a move until somebody has to force it with a pawn. omg it's boring. I'll just resign rather than play the game that way. so what I frequently do.... especially if I win a pawn in the first few opening moves....is sacrifice a piece in order to keep the other opponents king from castling... and open up attack. this leads to much faster paced games with more opportunities to attack when your opponents pawn front is in tatters and they can't castle either. so the question is.... I've played very few other people who are willing to sacrifice a piece that way to have a position advantage on the board. everybody seems so focused on the values of the pieces.

And why do nine out of 10 people under 1,000 rating immediately try to mate with the bishop /queen in the first few moves? Does anybody fall for that? . Okay caveat I have quite a bit ive messed up. I'm finally learning to defend that better. Occasionally I still screw that up. But if you want to get better...... It sure seems like continuing to attack with that queen on the second or third move is going to keep you from improving.

Sacrificing for the sake of sacrificing is not the way to play chess well. Proper sacrifice is justified when a dynamic advantage exists that must be instantly capitalized on or it likely will vanish. This may not happen every game or early on in many games. You can tailor openings that invite more aggressive and sacrificial play but opponents can often avoid such positions- chess is a two player game after all!

Instead practice rapid development and look to keep the position more open using sound-not sacrificial- central play. If your opponent won’t commit early on in the center- take it and build a space advantage to gain a long term advantage.

I completely get the doesn't work at high level chess where being down a piece may mean you lost the game. But at lower level chess it doesnt seem that bad. And I wouldn't say that it's sacrificing for no reason ... Giving up a Bishop or night for a pawn in order to keep your opponent from castling and have their king exposed to attack seems to me like a fair trade-off .... Even if you can't see any possible lines of success in the next few moves..... There's no doubt that you created a fairly big positional disadvantage for your opponent. You created a material disadvantage for yourself.... Can you overcome it is the question.

I think if you Play lower level players that make mistakes..... Maybe you can

That’s playing hope chess- you hope your opponent makes a mistake with a more exposed king that you can take advantage of to recoup your sacrificed material. This is why fewer players play as you indicate, because many realize early on that this will often result in losses and inhibit proper chess learning because while your opponent may make some mistakes, you will also, and they are playing with the material advantage. Even if you have a better tactical eye than your opponent, it still may be difficult to generate compensation from such early piece sacrifices, especially unwarranted ones as you’ve indicated.

Play as you desire, it is a game after all, but it should be little surprise when you don’t see many others playing as you do.

Maybe hoping. But the material disadvantage isn't that much. If you gain a pawn quickly in the opening moves...on points your only -1 after the sacrifice. ..a bishop or rook for 2 pawns...especially if they push pawns insted of immediately developing bishop and knights ...... You quick attack can keep them from developing and you got good chance to regain that material. In any case...faster more interesting game for my ADD.

And yeah...sometines it dont work. My mistakes though usually...not oppponents great defense

It seems there should be value attributed destroying opponents ability to castle....etc. It costs them a couple moves to get king safer.

Not being able to castle isn’t such a big deal if you can’t force compensation in some manner from it. You create a dynamic disadvantage for the sacrificed material but time is on your opponents side so unless you have resources to act quickly in such a dynamic position you will slowly if not quickly fall into a bad position.

So you like attacking chess, that's great, I like it too. There is absolutely no need to make insane sacrifices. If the guy castles, you can attack the castled king too. For example, you can castle to the opposite side, and start a pawnstorm against the enemy king. The game is guaranteed to not be boring.

One more thing: a bishop or knight is worth much-much more in the middlegame than 2 pawns, or even three. It is not so in the endgame, if the pawns are close to queening, but in the middlegame a minor piece is just too powerful.

I dont like attacking chess as much as im bored to death with a standoff after development where neither side will move without weakening their position. Until someone (me) says screw it and pushes a pawn to get the standoff to collapse.

After they castle there can be nice sound sacrifices, like Greek Gifts.

 

Similar stuff can be done with "hooks" where you get you opponent's pawn to take your piece and your rook then stares down at your opponents' king.

I would focus more on finding ways to patiently create the opportunities for these good sacrifices. It will give you satisfying wins in the future. If you really enjoy it, ADHD could be an advantage even. Eric Hansen has ADHD and he's way better at chess than everyone here.

That's the exact type of thing I often do sometimes it doesn't pan out depending on their response. But I have no problem sacrificing a bishop to expose the king and open the game up there. I feel like a more skilled person would probably respond better to that than some do, but at lower levels it works probably 50/50 for me

I accidentally sacrificed my queen for a silly prawn😡

I was recently below 1000. I used to try to checkmate like that because it was something new we learn at the 700-900 level. After you pass 900 less people will do it as it no longer works. I actually played against you sometime in the past. I suggest watching ChessNetwork on YouTube and it will get you passed that level very quickly. I was 921 13 days ago and I’m already 1107 now. I have no natural talent, he’s just a great teacher. Normally to stop people from doing that checkmate you will block the Queen with the knight or move up the Queenside knight and sorry to fork the king and rook. If they start pushing the pawns on kingside you can block them. I’m not an expert but this is what I’ve noticed.

*start

If you would much rather resign than play positional chess, then either just don't play chess or don't hope to climb the rating ladder, because if you want to climb the ranks then knowing how to outplay opponents positionally and in closed positions is simply just a pre-requisite