Hi guys, was this game I won as black sound play or just luck. I sacrificed my rook, and bishop to attack the king and either mate him or win equal material while dislodging him and exposing him to further assault. This is typical of my play. I included notes to show thought process. Help and advice would be appreciated. I want to get better.
Rook Sacrifice...sound play or just luck?
Sort:
i dont think it was luck, i think your opponent just doesnt know how the pieces move. well i play bad myself, but at least i know i play bad whenever i see my game lol.
19.b3?? => 19.Rxd7 and black is finished
white can play 24.exf6 (en passant) roughly equal
but from 19. .. Bxb3 on, you did very well!
white isn't checkmated in this game,
1. exf6! (forced) black plays Nxf6+ (since any other move would lead to white rook capturing the knight)
2. Ke5 Rxa8 3. Rhd1 prepare for attack
white's king isn't comfortable and black's queenside pawns are dangerous but white has a rook for some compensation.
freelunch wrote:
19.b3?? => 19.Rxd7 and black is finished
white can play 24.exf6 (en passant) roughly equal
but from 19. .. Bxb3 on, you did very well!
That's the oversight! So it was luck that I won. I miss things like that. I probably should have kept my bishop on it's leash and played right, do you think?
[COMMENT DELETED]
I loved reading commentaries of a ~1400 player. Just lovely
Fasaa wrote:
I loved reading commentaries of a ~1400 player. Just lovely
Can you correct my thinking? I just wrote what I thought. As pointed out, I won by luck because white had a way out. So, other than the silly sacrificial assault on the king where could I have improved?
BotaoJiang wrote:
white isn't checkmated in this game,
1. exf6! (forced) black plays Nxf6+ (since any other move would lead to white rook capturing the knight)
2. Ke5 Rxa8 3. Rhd1 prepare for attack
white's king isn't comfortable and black's queenside pawns are dangerous but white has a rook for some compensation.
Wow, that's true. He shouldn't have resigned. I could have easily tanked from there.
This was our rematch. I was white this time. Was this sound play or just luck? I applied comments again.
Regarding "Rook Sacrifice...sound play or just luck?":
I think it was a good game. Lucky? Well, yes you can say that you were lucky since white could have played much better, but you can't win a chess game against perfect play. Think about Tal, he sometimes made sacrifices that were questionable, which you could see when you analized the games after they were played, but he won. You obviously are willing to take a risk when there is a promising chance in the position.
Your comment to white's very first move is a bit off. I don't think you can count on the idea that a player wants to be passive just because he starts with 1.d4. But the second move 2.e3 was certainly a rather passive move. In your comment to that move you mentioned the bishop, you wrote "... It also hemmed in the dark square bishop." So it is a bit fun that you later want to exchange your bishop with that one.
You had a plan, we don't know if white had one, his tenth move 10. Nb5 does look as if he didn't really have a good plan, since there was nothing that could back up that knight in a potential attack, and he simply had to take it back when it was attacked.
It is very good that you annotate some moves and not all moves. I have sometimes seen a player annotate every single move and that is too much. It is more fun when some moves are annotated and others are not.
Thanks for sharing!
on the second game you honestly should have seen 9. Bd5 was bad... it breaks an opening law of moving a piece more than once if you don't have to, your bishop is already well centralized (no need to further it without cause), and you are risking the trade of a bishop for a knight losing your bishop pair and keeping his. Better was developing your dark bishop to e3 completing your minor piece development.
Fasaa wrote:
I loved reading commentaries of a ~1400 player. Just lovely
i bet you got beaten up pretty often in school.
PUMAPRIDE wrote:
Fasaa wrote:
I loved reading commentaries of a ~1400 player. Just lovely
i bet you got beaten up pretty often in school.
Why on earth would you trade your black bishop for his on move 10? His is a very bad bishop! You're only doing him favors. Look at his pawn structure - all dark squares. That's just one little positional note, there's a lot of other stuff to comment on...
What is with the d4-e3-f4 opening by white? I was playing someone yesterday who threw out exactly the same opening every time he was white... Does it even have a proper name? I would say this opening is totally awkward and weak.
gzthompson wrote:
Why on earth would you trade your black bishop for his on move 10? His is a very bad bishop! You're only doing him favors. Look at his pawn structure - all dark squares. That's just one little positional note, there's a lot of other stuff to comment on...
I didn't think about it that way. I was thinking that I wanted to attack on the queenside and my queen was on a blue square so I needed to eliminate the blue bishop so it won't destroy my attack chances diagonally.
I assume trading my good bishop for his bad one was indeed a sour move if one is playing for a material advantage going into a long end game. I wasn't thinking about the end game though. That's why I did that.
What other errors could you point out?
duskrevival wrote:
What is with the d4-e3-f4 opening by white? I was playing someone yesterday who threw out exactly the same opening every time he was white... Does it even have a proper name? I would say this opening is totally awkward and weak.
I don't know what it is...but I agree. It doesn't strike fear into my heart when I play against it. It actually just encourages me to attack without abandon.
What if white doesn't play b3?