why does the engine want me to hang my queen? Can someone please explain

Sort:
21stphilosopher

bdub77769
Because h2/h3 forces them to advance or pull back. Queen isn’t in danger. Trade knights then h2-h3
blueemu

 

21stphilosopher
bdub77769 wrote:
Because h2/h3 forces them to advance or pull back. Queen isn’t in danger. Trade knights then h2-h3

I don't think I understood.

The earlier position was bishop at c4. I moved it to e2. However the engine says I should have moved my knight to e5 capturing black knight. If I did that, wouldn't the bishop at g4 capture my queen?

21stphilosopher
blueemu wrote:

 

oh that's amazing. Thankyou

blueemu
21stphilosopher wrote:

oh that's amazing. Thankyou

That's not amazing.

This one is cool... I defeated a 1900-rated player in an OTB (over-the-board) tournament because he overlooked the White Queen's check on b5.

 

21stphilosopher

wow. that checkmate threat was hard to catch. If I was the opponent I would've thought wow blundered his queen 

blueemu

That pattern... with White moving the "pinned" Knight and sacrificing his Queen for mate... is called a Légal's Mate, named after a French chess player from the mid-1700s..

tygxc

There are many similar unpinning tactics. That is one reason why Steinitz and Lasker adviced not to pin the KN with the QB.

MyNameIsNotBuddy
blueemu wrote:

That pattern... with White moving the "pinned" Knight and sacrificing his Queen for mate... is called a Légal's Mate, named after a French chess player from the mid-1700s..

You mean this?

I think this is called the Sea Cadet Mate

pfren

This is a common motif, and it also appears in positions where there is no apparent mate, or gain of material.

 

It's still far from over, but white has a winning positional advantage.

king5minblitz119147

this line given by pfren is the biggest reason why i played 2 nf3 against the nimzowitch, knowing that it offers black a decent transposition to the normal open games with 2..e5, which is a shame for white, as 2 d4 doesn't allow that and may be objectively stronger also.

 

archaja

That´s the way I love it:

 

drmrboss
king5minblitz119147 wrote:

this line given by pfren is the biggest reason why i played 2 nf3 against the nimzowitch, knowing that it offers black a decent transposition to the normal open games with 2..e5, which is a shame for white, as 2 d4 doesn't allow that and may be objectively stronger also.

 

What is a shame for playing 2.d4!! which is the recommanded line by the Strongest chess player or Stockfish. 

 

 

 

pfren
drmrboss wrote:
king5minblitz119147 wrote:

this line given by pfren is the biggest reason why i played 2 nf3 against the nimzowitch, knowing that it offers black a decent transposition to the normal open games with 2..e5, which is a shame for white, as 2 d4 doesn't allow that and may be objectively stronger also.

 

What is a shame for playing 2.d4!! which is the recommanded line by the Strongest chess player or Stockfish. 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you play after 2.d4 d5?

Feel free to consult your allmighty stupid engine.

All three possible lines (3.e5 Bf5, 3.exd5 Qxd5, 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 Nb8!) give Black decent play.

2.d4 is not better , or worse than 2.Nf3, but surely enough a hopeless woodpusher would decorate it with a double exclam.

llama47
drmrboss wrote:
king5minblitz119147 wrote:

this line given by pfren is the biggest reason why i played 2 nf3 against the nimzowitch, knowing that it offers black a decent transposition to the normal open games with 2..e5, which is a shame for white, as 2 d4 doesn't allow that and may be objectively stronger also.

 

What is a shame for playing 2.d4!! which is the recommanded line by the Strongest chess player or Stockfish. 

Pfren's words are pretty harsh, but honestly it's better to think of it like an EGTB... in other words there are many equally good moves. Your goal is to choose a move you understand, or that leads to positions you want.

Engine evaluations fluctuate a few deci-pawns here and there depending not only on depth and hardware, but also change as you put the actual line on the board.

IOW quoting an engine for a single move is pretty meaningless both in the practical sense and in the analytical sense.