Chicken_Monster v. Knightactic -- October 2015

Chicken_Monster

Any analysis on the following game would be greatly appreciates. I can't see thta I made a blunder (a big deal for me), yet was still beaten fairly soundly and forced to resign. Thanks.

http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=118466752

cookie3

your bishop sacrifice was unsound, and then your opponent was able to trade down and use his extra piece to wear you down

Trapper4

15. Bxf7+?? Kxf7. 

not much more to analyse.

jlconn
Trapper4 wrote:

15. Bxf7+?? Kxf7. 

not much more to analyse.

I disagree. White shouldn't be losing after 15.Bxf7+, and I wouldn't give the move two question marks, unless you were a novice player still trying to master not giving away material.

Yes, the bishop sac instantly changed things from really good for White, but only to a bit better for Black. It was the queen exchange that followed that increased Black's advantage, and retreating with the bishop to e3 was probably weak, as well. If you're going to sac a piece for two - or even three - pawns, you need to make sure that your opponent's pieces lack activity, or - at the very least - are not as active as yours. Also, rooks are good against the pawns, so why not trade on e8?

I would not have resigned when you did, in any case. Sure, you're dead lost against best play, but Black still had work to do. Until Black has captured your d pawn and eliminated or immobilized your a pawn, you have chances. If Black plays well, resignation may come soon anyway, but if not, well, the chances of a draw go up dramatically if Black loses the c pawn.

achja
 
The bishop sac was not very very bad. But after that you helped your opponent to win, by making a few mistakes.
 
As a rule of thumb :
In the middlegame and endgame a bishop can equal 3 pawns. But it all depends on the position and things like "the initiative" and "compensation".
A bishop sac for 2 pawns should only be done if you have clear compensation, or if you are forced to do so.
 
See e.g. the Nakamura-Kamsky game from this week, where Kamsky lost a piece (not a sac) against a few pawns (first 1 or 2 pawns, but later got more) but managed to draw in the end.
 



Robert_New_Alekhine

You played quite well until d6? The pawn becomes weak on that square; on d5 you can easily protect this passed pawn.

After Bxf7?? The game is over.

Chicken_Monster

Thanks all for the excellent points. My thought process was that I wanted to practice sacs once in a while. I find it sort of like tryinging different openings -- it may hurt your rating in the shorter term yet help your chess in the long run.

Essentially, I knew I probably couldn't beat Knightactic without trying something a bit unusual. I wanted expeose his King and just pray. Anyway, a learning experience.

I would also like to say it is because of achja's blog that make this sac. I thought I could do what he does....well not yet...

Chicken_Monster

Actually, this game was in September of 2015.

achja
Chicken_Monster wrote:

I would also like to say it is because of achja's blog that make this sac. I thought I could do what he does....well not yet...

Thanks for the compliment.

I am sure that with some more experience and study you will be able to sac in the future and get beautiful chess games.

Sac-ing and learning from it is good for your "chess self confidence" for future usage imho.

Trapper4
jlconn wrote:
Trapper4 wrote:

15. Bxf7+?? Kxf7. 

not much more to analyse.

I disagree. White shouldn't be losing after 15.Bxf7+, and I wouldn't give the move two question marks, unless you were a novice player still trying to master not giving away material.

Yes, the bishop sac instantly changed things from really good for White, but only to a bit better for Black. It was the queen exchange that followed that increased Black's advantage, and retreating with the bishop to e3 was probably weak, as well. If you're going to sac a piece for two - or even three - pawns, you need to make sure that your opponent's pieces lack activity, or - at the very least - are not as active as yours. Also, rooks are good against the pawns, so why not trade on e8?

I would not have resigned when you did, in any case. Sure, you're dead lost against best play, but Black still had work to do. Until Black has captured your d pawn and eliminated or immobilized your a pawn, you have chances. If Black plays well, resignation may come soon anyway, but if not, well, the chances of a draw go up dramatically if Black loses the c pawn.

Last I checked a move going from one side winning to the other side having advantage deserves two question marks, but okay.

jlconn
Trapper4 wrote:
Last I checked a move going from one side winning to the other side having advantage deserves two question marks, but okay.

Was White winning before 15.Bxf7+? Perhaps I simply lack sufficient ability to realize that; all I was/am sure of is that White had the better of things on move 14, but that is not the same as having a won game.

If White was winning, then maybe two question marks is appropriate.

Chicken_Monster

According to the chess.com computer, I was slightly winning. I don't know if that slight difference makes a big difference at my level....but maybe it did...

http://www.chess.com/blog/Chicken_Monster/chickenmonster-v-knightactics----october-2010

achja

As far as I am concerned, 15.Bxf7+ deserves at least 1 exclamation mark for courage.

Quite a lot of lower rated chess players are stuck in attacking pieces and never sacrifice anything, and develop a chess engine pawn grabbing, and artificial chess playing style.

Starting to sacrifice and dealing with the aftermath, as well as analysing after the game, is imho quite a good experience for the future of their chess games.

What's more, in the tens of thousands of chess games that I played myself, I noticed that a lot of players, including stronger players, are not at all familiar with queen sacrifices, and their evaluation, in this, is sometimes so flawed that they are too optimistic and start blundering and losing real soon.

Chicken_Monster

Thanks for the courage plug. It is better to have sacked and lost than never to have sacked at all.

jlconn

If that's your attitude, then maybe you should play the old openings and gambits, where such sacrifices are more likely to be correct, or at least immediately instructive.

But then I don't know what you're aiming for - are you aiming to generate attacks by your sacrifices, or are you simply trying to practice playing with material imbalances?

In our coffe house chess league, I and another player have a kind of unwritten rule that it is a matter of honor both to sacrifice speculatively, and to accept all such sacrificed material. It's like playing chess back in the Victorian era.

Aside from simply being fun, our games occasionally yield truly interesting ideas and I've learned a lot from the practice.

achja
jlconn wrote:
In our coffe house chess league, I and another player have a kind of unwritten rule that it is a matter of honor both to sacrifice speculatively, and to accept all such sacrificed material. It's like playing chess back in the Victorian era.

Aside from simply being fun, our games occasionally yield truly interesting ideas and I've learned a lot from the practice.

Delighted to hear that ! Made me smile. Thumbs up ! Smile

Chicken_Monster

But then I don't know what you're aiming for - are you aiming to generate attacks by your sacrifices, or are you simply trying to practice playing with material imbalances?

I think of chess as war. I am aiming to win. Period. However, I want to do it in a way that is fun. I don't normally make sacs, but I would say "both" to your question.

zeitnotakrobat

Hm, looking at achja's comments in the variation with 15. Bb5 I don't see a good way to defend the pawn on b7 in the final position of that variation. Re7 might also be a threat. At first glance I would assume white has big advantage there.