Sac or Snack?
Sort:
gimme a break. That opening doesn't have a name.It was garbage. He was probably messing with you, thinking he could get a comeback with his amazing 1600 rating.
Yeah, nice attacking play. Yet another 1600+ who hasnt got a clue how to play well. Is it just me or is 1600 a weak grade?! :-s When i was growing up and learning i thought 1600 players were stronger than that.
tonydal wrote:
Yeah, I'd have to say that looked to be the venerable Fake You Out Gambit. And you could've taken him out even quicker (though not by much) with 10 Bxh7+ Kxh7 11 Ng5+. If then 11... Kg6 12 Qd3+ f5 13 h5+ Kf6 14 Be5+ Kxg5 15 Qg3+ and mate next; if 11... Bxg5 12 hg+ Kg6 13 Qh5+ Kf5 14 g6+ Kxf4 15 g3 mate.
Your concluding combination was very nice! But 15 Qh6 was probably even more decisive (if 15... f6 16 Qg6 and 17 Nh6 mate next).
Oh yeah, and your attack was very sound. His opening wasn't.
Yes, in retrospect Qh6 seems faster now, though I still have to learn to be comfortable with attacks that aren't checks.
Anyway, thank you all for taking time to comment. I appreciate it.
Nightshadow,
There is an Owen's defense (virtually unplayed) for which you both played book for the first 3 moves. However, the knight sac is silly and does not even have the earmarks of a blunder as both recapturing pieces are in close proximity and nothing is pinned and there are so few developed pieces that there isn't much to keep track of etc. Nor is it really a stategic error as black pressed no attack. It is merely bizarre. He did other equally unexplainable moves 14)...b5 ?? when your knight was hanging (granted, you did not need it) and your attack was overwelming.
Other than the aforementioned Qh6 oversight, you played well.
Chess is like golf, everyone judges their own ability by their "brilliancies", yet they win or lose according to their mistakes.
Hope this was helpful.
Ah yes ... The Bullshido gambit
In terms of your "not sound" attack. I don't think he could have taken your bishop as your queen would recaputure, and then his f5 is virtually forced and then you can capture his backwards e6 with your knight. In the played line, 12)...e5 was suicial, 13)...Bf6 was also vitually forced, 14)...d4 was useless, and 15)...c5 was mentioned above. If he had played with ordinary human cognescience, you could have just pulled your bishop back, advanced your g pawn, and pressed on.
Earlier, your h4 should have been met with Nd2 and Nf6 and possibly Ng4.
Ferdyrojo wrote: What's the Bullshido gambit? In any event, Black played a fake sac! (5. ... Nxe4).
Too many non-native English speakers to use such terms.
Bushido is English spelling of Japanese term for art/science/philosophy/way of war.
Bullshit used to be vulgar but is now an increasingly acceptable phrase for lying/faking/balonying your way through life. "Look him in the eye, give him a firm handshake, and speak with authority about which you know nothing".
Talfan was being clever. There is no such gambit.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
My first game on Chess.com was a little weird. My opponent gave me a piece for a pawn on the fifth move and frankly, since the guy thrashed a 1614 rated person during the course of our game, and it was his second game, I was sceptical. I've not often encountered this opening before and I don't even know it's name. Could someone please tell me what it's called? Additionally, I think that my attacks were not sound and could have been refuted. Could someone analyse this please?