x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

Nice Bishop sac

  • #1

    Here is a game I played on the ICC. Comments would be greatly appreciated.

  • #2

    Looks like a good game. I like the way you broke through Black's structure. However, 22.f6 followed by Qg3+ would have given you a forced mate on g7.

  • #3

    If 22. f6, Kh8 23. Qg3 Rg8 and nothing is gained

  • #4

    If 22...Kh8, then you reply 23.Qh3 instead og Qg3. Either way, you will still mate.

  • #5

    22 f6 Kh7 and both Qg3 and Qh3 are met by Rg8 and I dont see a forced mate anytime soon

  • #6

    if black had played 20....Qf6 how would you continue ? 

  • #7

    The mate doesn't only have to be with the Queen. you could bring your King's Rook into the fight a few moves later, too. I'm just pointing out that 22.f6 would be a nice blocking move that would eventually end in mate; even if the Black Rook is brought to g8 since you have a Rook to oppose it.

  • #8

    I'm not sure what you mean.

  • #9

    Black cannot play 20...Qf6 since black pawn occupies f6 square..isn't it?

  • #10
    Jitesh wrote:

    Black cannot play 20...Qf6 since black pawn occupies f6 square..isn't it?


     In the second game not, but the first game yes.

  • #11

    I don't know who the hell you think you are, sir, but I have every right to say whatever I want to on an open forum. If I think one line brings victory, I have every right to post it to the original poster of this topic. I am only stating my opinion and if other poeple don't agree with it then it's their problem and not mine. I am not arguing with anybody, so shut your mouth!

    Who's arrogant now? "Significantly more knowledge than you" my ass! I can post any lines and analysis I want on this site, and I don't give a F*** what you think of it. I never asked for your advice and I don't want it.

  • #12
    RainbowRising wrote:
    Daniel3 wrote:

    I'm not sure what you mean.


    I mean you're an argumentative, stubborn, ignorant little twerp who is arguing with myself and a NM, both of whom have more and significantly more knowledge than you, respectively. Is that clear enough for you to understand?


    Knowledge of what?  Certainly not of how to prepare a constructive argument instead of simply lashing out with ad hominem attacks or of how to generally act in a civil manner in a public forum.

  • #13

    If you are basing him against your own rating than he is probably significantly lower than 1400, CC ratings being very inflated compared to live ratings.

  • #14

    I don't see what works you up so much about this. You are immature and stupid.

    I have posted analysis that is free for comment, but instead you resort to using personal insults and rantings. You are more childish than a 16-year-old (me); all you have done is attack me without reason. I wasn't arguing with anybody and you never proved me wrong in anything yet. I don't see why anybody should listen to someone who hasn't got the balls to refute what a 16-year-old is saying but instead lashes out at him with dumb insults. You're pathetic and I don't see why I should continue talking to you anymore.

    This is still a free forum and I can post my analysis wherever I please. If that bothers you so much than maybe you're on the wrong site? This is about chess, remember? Not about your pre-period "low time".

  • #15

    I dont see a forced mate anytime soon after f6 and neither did shredder after a long think and you do Daniel?! Where's your analysis with the forced mate in it ? Helpmates dont count ! The proof is in the pudding as they say....

  • #16

    I would hardly call an NM an expert. Still, he does have more chess knowledge than me; and I did say that even if the mate wasn't forced at that point, you could still bring another Rook into the attack and have a winning attack. He never contradicted me on this point.

    You still haven't proven me wrong, so I don't see why I have to admit it.You haven't posted any analysis, any lines or refutations, or anything chess-related for that matter.

    And even if I am wrong, what makes you think that you're the one that should point that out to me? As I said, I haven't heard any analysis coming out of the junk you've posted, so get up and prove that what you are saying carries any wieght. If not, then let more agreeable and friendly people take up the space on these forums.

  • #17

    Ok, so maybe not a forced mate. But I think it will lead to a winning attack if it was tried. If not, then please show me why f6 is a bad move? If it isn't, then it must be a good one which makes it correct.

  • #18

    I never claimed f6 is a bad move, please work on your reading comprehension if thats what you got out of what I said ! I did say it doesnt lead to a forced mate as black does have defensive resources. Why should I post any analysis ? You have not shown that you are mature enough to accept anything I say so why would I believe you would accept my analysis?

    Oh...... for your information an NM would be insulted if you called them an expert since "expert" is a full class lower than NM. You are right that I am no expert though ! I am better than an expert! LOL Maybe you need to learn more about chess ratings/titles/classes to avoid such embarrassment in the future?  Wink

  • #19

    Daniel3, you have just a small and easily acquired part of NM Reb's chess expertise. Try RESPECT.

  • #20
    Daniel3 wrote:

    Ok, so maybe not a forced mate. But I think it will lead to a winning attack if it was tried. If not, then please show me why f6 is a bad move? If it isn't, then it must be a good one which makes it correct.


     It's your contention that f6 leads to such good things (mate...a win), so it's up to you to provide proof in the form of analysis. I'd think this was obvious.

Online Now