I would say no....
1...Nc4+ 2.bc4 bc4+ 3.Ka1
How would you evaluate the pros and cons of Nc4+ is this position?
Sort:
@Keto Cheers for replying.
3. Ka1 c6 4.Qd6 d5, with the idea of taking on a3 and using that b2 square?
Not using an engine here, feel like there's more to the position then an engine analysis.
If 3. Ka1 c3 and the white queen has some trouble to sort out. For instance, if 4. Qd3? e5!! 5. Nb3 Bb5!! and the queen is out of squares. If 4. Qc1 Rb2 looks like trouble as white's rooks can't come to contest the all-important b-file, so the proper continuation seems to be 4. Qe1, though taking the queen away from the action has dangers all its own.
3. Kc1 c3 with 4. ..d6 is an instant loss, too. I think there's sufficient compensation for the piece to justify the sacrifice on all lines. Perhaps unclear, but I can't find a definitive refutation (an engine might).
However, your opponent would have probably been OK giving back the piece with 2. Bxc4 bxc4 3. b5, etc., as the black c4 pawn is difficult to defend and easily blockaded (3. ..c3+ 4. Nxc3 loses it immediately). If the move is unsound, I'd wager the refutation involves declining it as a sacrifice.
Jun 17, 2020
0
#6
12Knaves wrote:
@Keto Cheers for replying.
3. Ka1 c6 4.Qd6 d5, with the idea of taking on a3 and using that b2 square?
Not using an engine here, feel like there's more to the position then an engine analysis.
I think your squares are a little backwards. It should be 3...c3 4.Qd3 no?
I dont see any kind of win but the position does look very dangerous for white. However, 1. ... d5 looks stronger to me. Taking it looks awful, but what other options does white have with the threat of e5 out there? Nc4 is still an option as well, and will only be stronger with the bishop diagonal already opened. I did fire the engine, and it likes 1. ... e5 even a tad more, but 1. ... d5 looks more straightforward to me.
Dsmith42 wrote:
If 3. Ka1 c3 and the white queen has some trouble to sort out. For instance, if 4. Qd3? e5!! 5. Nb3 Bb5!! and the queen is out of squares. If 4. Qc1 Rb2 looks like trouble as white's rooks can't come to contest the all-important b-file, so the proper continuation seems to be 4. Qe1, though taking the queen away from the action has dangers all its own.
3. Kc1 c3 with 4. ..d6 is an instant loss, too. I think there's sufficient compensation for the piece to justify the sacrifice on all lines. Perhaps unclear, but I can't find a definitive refutation (an engine might).
However, your opponent would have probably been OK giving back the piece with 2. Bxc4 bxc4 3. b5, etc., as the black c4 pawn is difficult to defend and easily blockaded (3. ..c3+ 4. Nxc3 loses it immediately). If the move is unsound, I'd wager the refutation involves declining it as a sacrifice.
The refutation is to takes, qe1 and nf5
prashantsrikanth wrote:
Dsmith42 wrote:
If 3. Ka1 c3 and the white queen has some trouble to sort out. For instance, if 4. Qd3? e5!! 5. Nb3 Bb5!! and the queen is out of squares. If 4. Qc1 Rb2 looks like trouble as white's rooks can't come to contest the all-important b-file, so the proper continuation seems to be 4. Qe1, though taking the queen away from the action has dangers all its own.
3. Kc1 c3 with 4. ..d6 is an instant loss, too. I think there's sufficient compensation for the piece to justify the sacrifice on all lines. Perhaps unclear, but I can't find a definitive refutation (an engine might).
However, your opponent would have probably been OK giving back the piece with 2. Bxc4 bxc4 3. b5, etc., as the black c4 pawn is difficult to defend and easily blockaded (3. ..c3+ 4. Nxc3 loses it immediately). If the move is unsound, I'd wager the refutation involves declining it as a sacrifice.
The refutation is to takes, qe1 and nf5
Qc1 Rb2 Nc3
Opponent blundered right after with bxc4 bxc4+ Nb4 c3+forking the king and queen. But was nc4 as sound sacrifice in itself?