Defending is easier than attacking

Sort:
Avatar of Paul1e4

It is often said that attacking is easier than defending. That's not the case when I am attacking. I thought my early middlegame attack would succeed, and although I wound up getting three pawns for my sacrificed piece, that wasn't enough. I would like to know whether I could have sustained an attack, or whether my sacrifice was unsound to begin with. I also want to know how I should have played the queenless middlegame better, and if there was any way to save the endgame. This was a 30+0 game on chess.com. At the end, I had a little more than 3 minutes left and my opponent had a little more than 6 minutes left, but I can't say that time pressure was behind my poor play.


I have not done the computer analysis of this game.

Avatar of borovicka75
After 12…h6?? Bxe6 white just wins. If fxe6 Qh5 leads to mate and otherwise you take on f7. In early middlegame three pawns are definitely not enough compensation for the piece. If you are down material or want to attack, you must not exchange queens. Never ever. There is nothing bad on retreating moves.