queen sacrifice


I've just played this game which involved a queen sacrifice in order to continue my attack, and oddly enough the only move after the final position was to capture my pawn en passant, if it wasn't for that it would have been checkmate. I'd like to know whether, if black had taken the pawn, (he didn't in the game) whether he/she would have won in the end or whether i would have had a checkmate in a few moves anyway, because i think i took quite a big risk (and i'm very bad at chess).



Brave move to sacrifice your queen, good game, well done!


holy shit...! this is so stupid...lolzzz


Completely unsound sacrifice, that worked because of the playing level of the players.  While we all would like to pull off a queen sac, the bigger question i have is this. 

"because i think i took quite a big risk (and i'm very bad at chess)."

Why are you playing unsound sacrifices without fully understanding them, and as you admit being bad at chess.  Id put the time and energy into understanding the position, instead of getting into the bad habit of making unsound sac's. 


yeah i was surprised my opponent didn't capture the pawn en passant (and a friend pointed out thqt i woul haave been in a losing position afterwards!)

what should i have done instead though on the move where the bishop was forking tthe queen and rook?


Sacrificing a queen for a bishop in order to have one check after 25 moves can hardly be described as a good idea.

Just for the record, in the final position Black is winning.


If the blacks had moved one of their rooks on the field of the white ones, wouldn't have been just simple enough to protect their black king, because here, I guess, this sacrifice was very risky as a whole. However, I think this is a victory of the whites by chance, because the player hasn't expected anything good from his opponent to defend himself. Oh god, this comment took me 20minutes to correct because of my 1000 mistakes and it's still wrong, sorry for the poor english.