My note to 17 says, "I don't know how to get the queenside going" but now that I look at it I had c5 -- I think I just got fixated on that annoying enemy a pawn.
In for a penny, in for a pound...
Sort:
nicely done. impressive going through that many moves without losing a piece.
>>Renegade \o/
Nice Rook Sac for the mate, very nice!
However, after 7....Bg4, if you had played 8. f3 you would have won either the bishop or knight that was threatened by your pawns
JonnySleazy wrote:
Nice Rook Sac for the mate, very nice!
However, after 7....Bg4, if you had played 8. f3 you would have won either the bishop or knight that was threatened by your pawns
Yeah I think you're right... i don't have time to look at it closely atm, but I recall thinking that somehow he was going to have a discovered attack on my lonely h file N, but looking quickly now, I think I was seeing phantoms. So his earlier bishop retreat into the pawn fork _was_ just a blunder... well, the game wasn't a masterpiece, that's for sure!
I love the 'throw everything at the King' games.
May 8, 2009
0
#8
I think your rook sac was sound, as it has enough positional compensation. However:
37...Bg4! would have rendered you lost.
Nice finish, congrats on the win!
slack wrote:
Yeah, 6. ...Be6 is a blunder. Check move list for variations.
You're right slack... it's not complicated. I missed it. I gave my opponent too much credit. Hanging that pawn fork is the kind of outright blunder he doesn't do very often (I'm the one who's blunder prone on the clock) and I just convinced myself "oh he sees something I don't..." so... lesson learned... don't ever give anyone credit for anything ;)
Here's a rapid (30 min) OTB game against a guy I think is roughly a B player -- he kicks my ass at blitz chess, but with 30 minutes I occassionally manage a decent game. This one ends with a splashy mate involving multiple sacs.