Maybe try sac-ing your Queen against gerry or stevie instead of against frank.
So hilarious 
You da beast
I have only ever made two queens sacrifices. Both times it was to draw attention away from a vital square. The first time it resulted in checkmate in the next move, the second time it was checkmate after two.
I can do that too!
[COMMENT DELETED]
Ofcourse is not deeply planned and game was a blitz 5+5 game if i remember. Is not official game or very importhan for me ~ anything like that. Immortal might be too strong word, becouse they use it for classical games that everyone remembers etc. But still is rare and extraordinary and pretty. And most importhan far better than any long planned or crazy whatever Daily chess example for reasons already stated.
Wait, you had "reasons"? I didn't see any. My game with ageistewart was played to a 24-hour time control, but I didn't spend 24 hours a day working out my move - probably I was close to normal tournament time controls throughout, and other than using the analysis board I didn't have anything outside my own head to help me.
And more importantly, my sac was played where I didn't already have a two-piece advantage and my opponent in a hopeless position - and while I like the result and enjoy analysing the lines that follow, I still wouldn't put it on my gravestone.
Your sac was played where you was already ~ +7.5 thats pretty hopleless specially for daily chess. Again Daily chess is not anything like blitz where you don't have all the time in the world, cheating is far less common, you can't really move pieces around freely to see if combination works , you don't use opening books or any help at all, your opponent is right there playing with you and he is in the same mindset as you are. Many Daily chess players have dozens of games going on and they can make a move thinking 1 hour or 10 seconds, most of the time they forget what have and why they played last moves etc. You can even have option to take back move or double check after you have played it :D This is not real chess buddy.
If I was already +7.5 then that was purely positional; material was level. I was long out of book and I've already explained about the time, and I don't even have an engine. A lot of people seem to consider it real chess all the same. Spare me the butthurt because I didn't call your one-move-deep combination the best thing evah... buddy.
And, just to be perfectly clear
, IF Spielmann said (Post 14) it's a pseudo-sacrifice (or a psyouknow-sacrifice or a psyouknowit'sadamn-sacrifice), then that of course is still a sacrifice - just like the Himalayan Greenbeaked Redwinged Goldenbacked Threetoed Woodpecker is ................ wait for it ................ yep you guessed it .............. a .................. Woodpecker !!!
And don't tell me there isn't one of those ........
orly? There's such a thing as a "pseudoscorpion" and that is most definitely not a real scorpion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscorpion
Gil-Gandel is a pseudonym, as in, not my real name.
A pseudointellectual is a person who fakes being an intellectual.
Pseudoscience is not real science.
You know, because "pseudo-" is not a mere qualifying adjective, but a prefix meaning "fake", "false", "imitation", "not real"...
Wooo check this out everybody:
I love punishing greedy players. Just love it.
this is not an immortal queen sacrifice.
Wooo check this out everybody:
I love punishing greedy players. Just love it.
You love praising yourself to the skies and being rude about your opponents, I can see that much. Nice finish, but the other guy opened lots of lines against his own King and had too many pieces offside.
I still think giving up the queen for a mate in 1 is a sacrifice, albeit not a real one, because the king is never eaten and if it is, then it is dead two moves after the queen sac.
I also think that for instance, giving up your knight for a rook is a sacrifice, if the rook is not gained immediately.
Anyway, the definition of 'sacrifice' is not clear, so don't start a debate of it. Can anyone make a Vote Chess of it?
Usually perform Queen sacrifice in a forced mate only..but there are games
I have won against strong opposition even after losing my Queen for a smaller piece or none at all..all depends on who commits the latest blunder and when..
In continuation of my post no.37 here is a game just played where inspite of
early Queen loss for a Knight ,I still managed to win..
https://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1673309427
@AngeloPardi in this game 13.Ne4 is counted as a brilliant move tho?
A brilliant forced mate to end the game !
@ Larsen has sacrificed enough queens and pieces to know what he is talking about.
@williamn27 : I think that to Larsen, you can call it a sacrifice only if it is a positional sacrifice, or at least if the fight is not over as soon as your piece is taken (which is the case here).
Suppose you have a knight pinned to your queen, and your opponent use this pin to move an unprotected piece to a place where it can be taken by the knight : you would not call it a sacrifice I think.
black can Rxg2+ Kxg2 Qd5+
Alguien habla español aquí?
Ofcourse is not deeply planned and game was a blitz 5+5 game if i remember. Is not official game or very importhan for me ~ anything like that. Immortal might be too strong word, becouse they use it for classical games that everyone remembers etc. But still is rare and extraordinary and pretty. And most importhan far better than any long planned or crazy whatever Daily chess example for reasons already stated.
Wait, you had "reasons"? I didn't see any. My game with ageistewart was played to a 24-hour time control, but I didn't spend 24 hours a day working out my move - probably I was close to normal tournament time controls throughout, and other than using the analysis board I didn't have anything outside my own head to help me.
And more importantly, my sac was played where I didn't already have a two-piece advantage and my opponent in a hopeless position - and while I like the result and enjoy analysing the lines that follow, I still wouldn't put it on my gravestone.