How unsound was the sac and was there anything else to learn from in the rest of the game? Was it a ?? or just a ?!
Unsound Knight Sac!?-please discuss merits of my sac
Sort:
It was a total hang.
Completely unsound
Name?
Honestly I think you'd need a computer to analyze after move 11 or 12. Unless the higher rated players here would care to offer a move for white that would destroy your position.
Your sac is devoid of merit.
Had you been playing decent opponent they would have returned the piece immediately with Bxf4 and you would have been forced to castle-long.
if you look at the position at move 9 or 10, it's obvious that black doesn't even have the shadow of an attack.
only because you want to attack, that doesn't mean you have the means to do so.
and you really got the wrong idea of Qf6+. retaking with the h pawn would not "destroy your structure", but instead would allow you to use your h-rook. E.g. 13.Rf1 would not have been possible if you opened the h file.
This was completely unsound. Better was 10...Nxd5 which took a pawn and discovered attack on Nh4.
Are you aware thtat 24...Rg3?? was a terrible blunder? Somehow white did not see that 25.Qxg3 would simply win a rook in addition to the piece...
netzach wrote:
Your sac is devoid of merit.
Had you been playing decent opponent they would have returned the piece immediately with Bxf4 and you would have been forced to castle-long.
I'm sorry, but why would they have returned the piece? There's no reason to do so, the attack isn't going anywhere.
The attack is too slow. White shouldn't have played 17. h4 - instead white should have thrown the queenside pawns at black. Black's bishop is a bad bishop and black lacks control of the light squares. White should be able to attack on the queenside and defend the kingside with a block on the light squares.
eg.
ItsEoin wrote:
netzach wrote:
I'm sorry, but why would they have returned the piece? There's no reason to do so, the attack isn't going anywhere.
Generally is good principle to do so if under attack yourself. Agreed in this case not necessary
The knight sac was unsound, although it seems you could have gotten some compensation for it, more than what you got in the game.
Grabbing pawns in the opening can be risky, but in this case 4. Nxe4, you're grabbing a central pawn and I don't see anything wrong with it. After all a pawn is a pawn, and winning a central pawn is important so I don't see anything wrong with this move.
6. I don't know why white didn't regain his pawn with Nxe5.
7. Bf5? is a mistake. Why not just move the knight back to c5 with tempo on white's bishop? After white played Nh4, why not just play g6 holding onto the bishop. Plus white had a better move than Nh4, Qc2 and now there's alot of pressure on your pinned knight.
on move 10 why not Nxd5. You will atleast get a 3rd pawn for your piece and white will have to castle by hand. At this point in the game I would still rather have the piece but you will atleast have a little more compensation than what you had in the game. These are the things you need to calculate if you are able to before you even make the sacrifice. You can't just sac a piece because it looks good exposing the king. If you dont see a good follow up, or a good way to get compensation for it then you shouldn't do it.
I really like you to share content, thank you and hope there will be more exchanges.
I think what you say is right, I support you.This is my website:crimped wire
I believe my knight sac was unsound however I was able to pull out a win, mostly due to some poor defense by my opponent. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks!