QUEEN SACRIFICE

Hey everyone, this is a game I played in which I sacrificed my queen to get an attack going.  I know it was a risky move, but I saw an opportunity, and I went for it.  I'm sure there's a way it could have backfired but his pieces looked strained and I had an idea of how I could beat him.

Please tell me if there was a way that it could have gone wrong.  I'm sure there were plenty of things he could have done to screw that up.

So here is the game.

I played as black.  Enjoy.

Why in the world would you sacrifice your Queen like that?

You were already winning by quite a bit and there was no reason to sacrifice your Queen.

For a while I was trying to get him to trade the rooks, but he wouldn't do it.  I needed the rooks gone if I was going to threaten his king.  I didn't see much point in dancing around with my queen.  Eventually she would have gotten trapped.

His queen didn't look like it could do much, but it caused me some headaches.  At the end though, I'm glad he took the knight.  It allowed me to do that final sequence since the rooks were connected instead of separated by the knight.

On move 45...Rf5,I was hoping that he would take the rook because she was pinned to the king, but he didn't.  If he did, then I would have tried to advance the new f pawn and promote it.  The position I think would have been relatively equal.

After he moved his king instead of taking the rook however, I began to see an alternative.  Near the end I saw the lingering checkmate and I had to keep the pressure on.  I tried a couple of times to get him to take a rook with his queen to release the pressure, but he never did.

Like I said before, it will most likely look like a stupid move to everyone and looking back, I think it was a pretty dumb move too, but I had a plan, and it seemed as good as anything else.  I didn't want to risk getting her trapped dancing around his fort.

I could have advanced my central pawns more, but I didn't want to move my knight anywhere.  I couldn't move him forward without losing him, and if I moved him backwards, it would have just made my position worse.

If that was your wish, why try to get HIM to do it, when you can accomplish it yourself?

26. ... Rxe3. If he responds 27. Rxe3 Re8 about forces the other exchange, soon if not immediately.

If instead he plays 27. fxe3 Rb1 pins it to the king. If he blocks with the bishop, you may be able to pile up on that piece. For example: 28. Bd1 Qb3 (offering an apparent Queen sac.) Then, if 29. Bxb3 Rxe1 30. Kh2 Re2 wins back the queen. If instead, 29. Qd2 Bc2 looks like it may force further simplification toward the endgame.

copied from my thread about a queen sac, which was successfully turned into a conversation about this queen sac;

funnily enough, your move was a blunder, but the computer suggests a different queen sac; 27... Qxc1 28. Rxc1 Rxc1. Well, That's not really a sac, but more an exchange in your favour. Where white went majorly wrong was 43. Kf3??,  43. Kh4 and your attack, with a little smart defence, is essentially over.

Also, if white hadn't gotten greedy with 39. Qxd6+, he could have forced the draw by alternating checks with Qf6 and Qd8 while you danced between g7 and the eighth rank. Having the queen does him little good versus an extra rook, knight, and three pawns, especially with things getting hot near his king.

To be honest, it was a cute but unneccesary sacrifice. Yes, you were already winning but without the Queen sac you should have had a cleaner kill. And like Bur_Oak said, if you want to trade rooks then just play ...Rxe3

sacrifice for nothing

Overall, though it was an unnecessary queen sacrifice, I think you played your attack pretty well.

Why not 46...Rxf5 47. Rxf5 c3 when you're up a bishop and have two dangerous passed pawns?

You know, I feel like this would be a move Mikhail Tal would play in a game.

 If he was way up on material and wanted the game to be slightly more interesting at the end, then yes... note the 3 passed pawns secure victory anyway.