Sacrifices.

The idea of sacraficing material has always interested and perplexed me. It is something that I have always wanted to do well but I have never really known when a sacrafice is available. I have recently improved a lot due to study and think that I am improving. I just played a game in which I sacrificed a knight for an attack on the enemy king. I won the game but my opponent blundered and im still not sure if I won because of the knight sac or the blunder or a combination of both so im still not sure if my sacrifice was right. I have spent some time analysing the game but still cannot figure out if the sac was right. Any help would be appreciated. Here is the game.

Any comments, tips of advice on the knight sac would be greatly appreciated. Thanks :)

Normally you want to get your pawn duo (e4, d4) in the center as soon as possible; you kept holding off on d4 for some reason, which looked odd.

6. e5 is possibly a premature attack since you haven't fully developed yet, and it doesn't even attack a knight or anything. Black did lose a couple tempi, however, which might justify an early attack. (I see you're trying to block the g7 bishop from having an open line, which is ordinarily good. I'm just not sure if the 6th move was the time to do that, or if a positional move should take precedence over an attacking move in those circumstances.)

You might consider castling queenside since Black has exposed his kingside so much and doesn't have the time now to develop his queenside to prepare for castling queenside. Then you would send a kingside pawn storm his way.

Your knight sacrifice did look justified to me because of the position: Black's weakened kingside, Black's loss of tempi, and locked center so that Black couldn't counter in the center. (Also a locked queenside, so Black couldn't counterattack *anywhere*!)

You had some good moves, like 16. c3 to prevent ...Nb4.

I think I would have played 23. f4 instead of losing a tempo backing up the bishop. That way you do several good things at once: save a tempo, open the f-file at the king, attack the king's defending 2 pawns, open up space for your bishop to attack, threaten f5 to support your queen if Black trades queens and to allow a possible knight outpost at f6.

Listen kid here's how it goes:  when you sack a knight you gain 3 moves, a rook, 5 and so forth.  That's what the point values really mean, how many moves (tempi) you gain sacking that piece.  I've never read this; however, once I discovered it's relative truth, I started sacking like Tal, not kidding ya.  I've got the rook sack down man, and that alone will kill for you.  Earliest and easiest is the knight for two pawns which usually gives you a one tempo initiative, which is the whole ballgame man, keep that initiative at all costs.

Good one I think the knight sac was worth it by miles

Given the situation, that sac was good enough.

Agreed with Sqod that you didn't seem to use your pawns enough.

First of all, if your opponent lets you follow up your 1. e4 move with 2. d4, ALWAYS do it. Occupying the center with both center pawns while letting your bishops out is always the way to go. You look like a newbie who always plays the Giuoco Piano moves even though your opponent doesn't. Playing on automatic is never a good idea. You have to vary based on what the opponent does.

But I agree with him that castling queen side and/or pushing one or more king side pawns to support your attack would have been good. This may even have made sacrificing unnecessary.

My recommendation, both for getting better at improvising in the opening, and for beginning to learn when and how to sacrifice for an attack, is to read the book "Logical Chess: Move by Move" by Irving Chernev. It's THE classic beginner's book for a reason, and your play makes me think you haven't read it. If you have, then maybe it's time to re-read it.

You gotta sack to get out of your own way; too many pieces on the board.  When you are protecting every piece and pawn Silman style you will never gain an attack.

After posting that and re-reading it, I think I may have sounded a little harsh in my last post. I hope that's not how you read it. I'm not trying to be condescending, just to give you some advice. Your play here is pretty good for a player of your level, but you asked for advice, so I made my recommendations for how you can probably improve.

I'm not convinced the sac was sound since you had too few pieces following up the attack, but given his light-squared bishop, and thus his Queen rook was completely blocked and useless you could get away with losing the piece.

Before Kh5 though you had only one Rook attacking after trading Queens.  Had he played Kg7 and activated his Rook he would have been doing ok, though still with that imprisoned bishop.

dinokiller14,

I didn't say the knight sacrifice was "good," only "justified." Personally I would not have played it: I would have waited for a better opportunity. White didn't even get two pawns for it at first, only one. I'm just saying that I believe the sacrifice still works, probably even if Black declines the capture since White can move in his other knight to attack in the mean time, and an enemy piece sitting in the middle of Black's territory near his king will be a high annoyance that will eventually motivate Black to capture it.

Ok First of all thank you to everyone that has commented so far. Every comment has been very insightful and I am learning by the minute. After reading the comments my thoughts are: 

Djorgal.

I agree that the knight wasnt doing anything in the position and therefore I didnt actually sacrifice much if I keep the initiative.

Sqod.

What can I say? You are like a chessopedia. You have answered many of my questions in the past few weeks. I have learned a lot from you and hope to learn a lot more:). Your right I did hold off on D4. It is a habit I got into when I first started learning to play. I read somewhere that making too many pawn moves in the opening is bad so I only made one for a long time and it became a habit. It has been fixed now but I still slip up and forget every now and again lol. I played 6.E5 simply because I prefer to work around a pawn chain than two lateral pawns and I didnt think he would play D5 or F5. You are right I probably should have castled Queenside and sent a pawn storm at the king. I think that my sacrifice looked good at first but now that I have analysed it further and gotten more opinions I realise that it only works if it is accepted. After 20 k G6, RH7 would trap my knight with no compansation. In this case the sacrifice was accepted but you cant always force an opponent to accept a sac. A valuble lesson learned here. I have looked at your idea 23. F4 and realised that it was a lot more accurate than moving the bishop. I guess I had tunnel vision at the time lol. 

Yes_Dear

Spoken like Tal himself. That is a whole other way of thinking, and I like it. I will keep that in mind next time. Thanks.

Fromper.

You are right in saying that I am a newbie. ( Ive been playing for around 7-8 months). When I started studying in detail and learning openings I was told by many people to stick to the opening moves and you will be fine. It is only recently that I have learned that this may not always be true. Thanks for recommending the book. I intend to get it soon. P.S Dont worry you didnt sound too harsh :)

Glamdring27

To be honest I think you are right on the money with your view. I played it out your way on the analysis board and it came out at about even.

dinokiller14

It was your comment that finally convinced me that the sacrifice was competely unjustified for 2 reasons

1. There is no great follow up, ok yes it broke up the kings pawn protection but I had no pieces attacking so a queen trade was always going to happen to relieve most if not all of the pressure from black.

2. He didnt have to accept the sacrifice. He could have moved the rook to h7 and been totally ok. 

25.QD3 is actually what Houdini recommended so well done for spotting that one. You are right 28.Kh5 was the reason I won. This is the ultimate proof that the sac was unjustified.

Fiveofswsords

I hadnt even thought of that until you said it. You have started to alter the way that I am thinking. This can only be good. Thanks :)

My Findings:

1. First and most important, while the sac was a nice idea in the situation the only reason it worked was inaccurate play by my opponent therefore it is unjust.

2. Your opponent does not always have to accept your sacrifices.( Seems obvious but I hadnt really thought about it to be honest)

3. To sac material you need to have a good follow up. ( If I intend to sac in the future I think I might take an extra minute to think of every folow up move and even improve the position before sacrificing.

4.  when you sack a knight you gain 3 moves, a rook, 5 and so forth.  That's what the point values really mean, how many moves (tempi) you gain sacking that piece.

Dinokiller14,

Yes, after looking through your analysis, I agree with you now: Black would start to win if he followed best play.

----------

(p. 9)

   The first thing we must learn is that combinations, and especially those
that lead to checkmate, do not materialize out of thin air. We have to cre-
ate the conditions for their successful introduction. We must establish an
advantage. The easiest type of advantage for us to understand is when we
are ahead in force. Our favorite living condition. From a position of su-
preme material superiority we can afford to be magnanimous. Yes, combi-
nations come easily when we are ahead in material. Imagine a position
where we may be a pawn or two to the good with only a few pieces on the
board. From a situation of material and positional superiority we sacrifice
a pawn to introduce a combination that forces the trade of all the remain-
ing pieces. Then our superior King's position motors through the oppo-
nent's position vacuuming up the remaining pawns for an easy win. Sheer
(p. 10)
happiness carries us through the rest of our day. Our combination to force
the trade of all the pieces worked!
   A second obvious advantage is being ahead in development. We have
activated our pawns and pieces, taking them from their original squares,
castled, connecting our Rooks, controlling the center, doing all the right
things according to the rules of strategy while our opponent has been dab-
bling about squandering tempi. In such situations our superior, well-
mobilized army overwhelms the defenders. To quote Reuben Fine, "Com-
binations are as natural as a baby's smile."
   What I hope this book will teach is how to set the table for a successful
combination. You must learn to recognize the advantages and disadvan-
tages in every position. Combinations spring from advantages in force,
greater mobility, more space, better pawn structure, safer King, a serious
weakness in our opponent's position, a misplaced piece, occupation of a
vital outpost, a stable pawn wedge, better coordination of our forces, and
so on. Something has to be in our favor for a combination to be sound.
Chess is a game of supreme logic. It only stands to reason that we must
have some advantage if our combinations may actually be correct. Yet
even this is not all there is to combinations. There is a lot more, including
psychology, temperament, time pressure, mood, tiredness and even lazi-
ness. Chess combinations are tactical short-term opportunities. A back-
rank mate no longer exists when our opponents create luft. A better devel-
oped army may yield a combination but if we dither the opportunity will
pass us by. when we do go for it and uncork a sacrifice we immediately
put pressure on our opponents. To accept the sacrifice or deftly decline the
offer? It is not everyone's pleasure to be under pressure, constantly having
to find the only move to satve off defeat. Many of Tal's sacrifices were
unsound but time and time again his oppponents cracked under the pressure
of his relentless initiative. In a lecture Tal explained his approach: "I like
to take my opponent for a walk in a dense forest. One where the path is
obscure and easy to miss. I feel comfortable in such wild places." how
cool is that! Sometimes we cannot be sure of the correctness of our sacri-
fice and we have to trust our fate to the chess gods. So be it! Let us de-
(p. 11)
velop our chess noses and learn the conditions that we need to become
combinative super-stars. When we have developed the confidence of fear-
lessness our opponents will feel our radiating aura of confidence and they
will become afraid.

Seirawan, Yasser. 2006. Winning Chess Combinations. London: Gloucester Publishers plc.

----------

(p. 7)
   One is reminded in this connection of Spielmann's well-known
comment on Alekhine's virtuosity. "Given Alekhine's positions, I
could see the brilliancies as well as Alekhine," said Spielmann,
"but my trouble is that I can't reach the positions." Aye, there's
the rub--to get the sort of game that will enable you to win. We
believe the Point Count will be an effective instrument for ac-
complishing just that, though you will assuredly not gain a
"Master's degree" without experience and study.
   Many of the strategical factors are no doubt familiar to you
through the catch-phrases "control of the center," "the two
bishops," "the outside passed pawn" and so on. This book under-
takes to give a comprehensive list of these factors, to explain how
to determine their merits and to provide a simple system of
evaluation.

(p. 8)
      POSITIONAL POINT COUNT TABLE

  Plus Points
Control of the center             Rook(s) on the seventh rank
Pawn on fourth v. pawn on third   Passed pawn
Mobile pawn wing                  Outside passed pawn
Strong outpost station            Protected passed pawn
Superior development              Advanced pawn
Greater space                     Qualitative pawn majority
Bishop-pair                       Advanced chain
Bishop v. knight                  Advanced salient
Half-open file                    Better king position
Control of useful open file       Offside pawn majority

   Minus Points
WEAK PAWNS
Backward pawn                     Hanging pawns
Doubled pawn                      Hanging phalanx
Isolated pawn                     Crippled majority wing

WEAK SQUARES
"Weak-squared complex"            King held in center
Holes                             Cramped position
Compromised king-side             Bad bishop

Horowitz, I. A., and Geoffrey Mott-Smith. 1960. Point Count Chess: An Accurate Guide to Winning Chess. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Not moving too many pawns in the opening is good advice. But remember, you always have to move two pawns in the opening - one to make a lane for each bishop. And if your opponent lets you plant your two center pawns on e4 and d4, go for it.

But it sounds like you're doing well in your improvement. Studying your games, especially with help from stronger players, is probably the most important thing ANY chess player can do to improve. We should all have more threads like this. :)