20422 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Alright, this game was ridiculous. I played black. I was trying out an unusual opening, I didn't like it and decided 'all or nothing' and made a double knight sacrifice hoping for a quick mate. A couple of blunders on white's part and I got the mate I was looking for -- but should it have worked? Could my position before 18...f3 be seen as better than white's?
absolutely RIDICULOUS! ok, its wasnt horrible, compared to some other idiots who post games full of holes (me)
The way i see it, it was brilliant (im about 1550 rating). because if he doesnt take your bishop with the pawn then you have both rooks skewered and a ton of pressure on his king.
Looks good to me. im no expert but that was a great way of clearing the pavement to get an attack going.
I'm definately no expert, and probably suck more at chess than you do, but maybe a few safer knight moves would have been better. (if your opponent defended correctly, you would be majorly down in material) Your idea was excellent, however.
Again, though, it was only your opponent's blunders that gave you the win. After the knight sacs, Fritz assessed the game as 6 points ahead for White (which is the amount of material you lost). In fact, at 22...Qa3 White was up by 8 points (he had some serious counterplay according to Fritz, worth almost a Queen). The culprit was of course 23. Rb1???? which turned a massively winning game to a mate in 4.
If you're curious, here's the line Fritz gave me:
So the consensus would be that it was even-ish until 18...Nf3, where I would have lost quite quickly if it wasn't for 23.Rb1.
Maybe I should give myself a little more credit for the first 17 moves =P
Indeed. You had tons of pressure on the queenside. There could have been safer ways to exploit that than double knight sacs, and if you played them, you could have had a nice and sound game.
psychological warfare ftw
Trying to clear the knights off the diagonal at move 18 looks like a good idea, but do you really have to sacrifice them?
18. ... Nd3 19. Bxd3 Nh5 29. Qf3 Bxc3 30. bxc3 cxd3 looks like an improvement.
Pretty win, blunderful game by your opponent, but you played like a ~1500 there
You are going to be something big. The "big" may be a pile of crap, but who knows.. maybe The "big" would be a big chess star
5/2/2016 - Nuances
by Lukemate 4 minutes ago
Will computers ever solve chess?
by Elroch 4 minutes ago
by solskytz 8 minutes ago
by Nordlandia 9 minutes ago
8/3/2014 - Mate in 2
by jerry1228 16 minutes ago
Which is better?
by henriques3 17 minutes ago
Kasparov is slaughtering Nakamura and So.
by Justs99171 27 minutes ago
4/21/2016 - Incredible Finish
by BryanCFB 27 minutes ago
by Martin_Stahl 29 minutes ago
People who overuse "!"
by Jimmykay 29 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!