Using small bait to mate

So that the "bait" here in a sense is taking the knight with the queen is the losing move by black, I believe.

I know it doesn't really mean much but also I think the annotation "22. Rfxf7#" is fancy, no?

I've added a response line in red in the original post, but it's:

17. Rdg1 dxc2 18. Rxg5 hxg6 19. Kxc2

followed by advancing the h-pawn; as in, now that I inspect it further, I don't know that even with 16... exd3, that white still shouldn't respond with 17. Rdg1, which plays to at least a slightly better than drawish position if exchanged as above, else all the original lines created by 16. Nxg6 holds. Mayhaps you see it differently? I'd be interested in a bit of exposition on it if you'd be so kind as to provide one.

Oh, I've just discovered this thread, can't recall recorded games of mine one this topic except the below one (well, the 'bait' there was subtler than simply a 'hanging' piece - the opponent hoped to pin and regain a piece lost to a fork).

(Oops, I messed the replayer analysis up a little bit - after 26. Rd1?? (in hope for exchanging rooks off and then developing the bishop to d2), 26... Nf3+! 27. Kh1 Qh2# is of course shorter, and that's what I was seeing during the game, just forgot by now. So there were actually two tiny mate baits in one game.) 

Sure, why not. Some semi-scattered thoughts attached.

17.Rdg1?? is certainly out of question, though.

Thanks! I've adjusted some of my play. I had seen before in a previous game (with the same thematic opening) a computer analysis that suggested the same exd3! counter as a check on the queen, so I take your insight to heart. Thanks again.

Here, succumbing to the temptation to begin exchanging over pressure thru b4 as an early checkline on an uncastled king leads to pins, a dropped piece, and a (proper) resignation in 12. I like this as a much faster and open approach to the Fisher opening I have been playing obsessively.

Well, after 8.Nc3 Black's position is a load of crap, but... worse can happen: After 8.Bc3(!) Black may resign.

You meant 10. Nc3 for the last game I posted, right?

And: re: 8. Bc3(!): what about 8... Nfxd5?

As in, at least,

9. Bxb4 Nxb4

10. Nc3 Nc6 as a very neutral posture on the analysis?

No, I mean 8.Nc3- yes, in the last game you posted.

8.Bc3 Nfxd5 drops a piece for nothing. You may solve it as an exercise (although it's an elementary one).

Here's a "bait for mate" at the end of this one I guess...

16.Ba4 in #55 is one of the few moves available to destroy a completely winning advantage.

But seriously, sacing to open lines or deflect pieces is good.  Just be sure you're looking for your opponent's best move, not his worst move ;)

Maybe I'm just tired, but I don't see this elementary exercise at least in terms of dropping a piece for nothing. I see at most an exchange. You've piqued me: How does Nfxd5 drop a piece? I'm sorry if I'm being stupid, but I'm stumped by your comment (not a bad thing). Thanks for your replies.

Thank you for letting me know that IM Pfren. I sensed the need for a forcing move to give me time to clear the f file for attack and it seemed to "feel" right at the time. It was one minute bullet so I wasn't sure, but once I saw the opportunity to steer the position into the familiar mating net at the end, I was glad to have found it.

If you see the move, I bet you could calculate it to verify it's correct.

Here's a hint (only 1 is right):

a) axb4 (double attack on the queen and knight)

b) Qxd5 (counting on the pin to save you)

c) Nd2 (unpins the a pawn so now axb4 is threatening the pinned knight)

Yeah, I was tired. I see b. Not to flog a horse, but how about 8... Ne4 then instead? I know that this pin is hazardous, but the way this game opened early I feel that this was the correct play to make, particularly because of 5. cxd5. I'm open to correction.

Ok, I see where you're coming from.  You suspect 5.cxd5 was a mistake, and you want to try to win the d pawn.

So I look at the position after 5.cxd5 and (ignoring the knight is under attack) I just sort of philosophize about whether the d5 pawn is weak. White has 1 defender and can bring 3 more in the next 3 moves.  Black has no attackers and can bring two attackers in the next 2 moves.

White's moves are e4, Bc4, and Nc3.
Black's moves are Nb4 and Nf6

But, I see Nf6 attacks e4.  So I do a quick calculation to see if I can actually count on e4.

So I decide I will have 2 attackers to white's 4 defenders.

Oh, but I notice there may be a tactic.  Nb4 e4 Qa5 threatens the d pawn because I can take with check.  Oh, but Nc3 is the next defender and also blocks the discovered check.

In a real game, just from my experience, I would actually defend with Nc3 first (not e4) because when I have a choice I give preference to moving pieces in the opening.

Anyway, this is why I disagree with the idea of trying to attack the d pawn.  If we could attack it from stable squares, then fine, but the knight cannot live on b4.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Now the position after 8.Bc3.  A lot has happened that wasn't in my calculation, so I have to do another evaluation.

First it is very important to identify if white has a threat.  How about pawn takes knight?  Ok the pawn is pinned.  How about Nd2?  Ok, that immediately threatens the pinned knight.

Candidate moves: 8...Ne4

Does it cover the threat?

Ok, it was necessary to cover the threat, and we did.  Now we want sufficient.  What is sufficient?  Well, is our move good if white just ignores it and plays whatever he wants.  In short: what does my intended move threaten and can he ignore it?

I suppose I threaten Nxc3.  So now what if white plays whatever he wants?  The most logical move I see is simply 9.Nf3.  If I capture on c3 he recaptures with the knight so I lose time (he develops and I lost time by capturing).  What if I just develop?  If both sides develop, it will be difficult for me to finish because his c3 bishop pins my f8 bishop to g7.

Ok, so I decide to execute my threat and capture.  So I calculate:

Not the best moves (white can do much better with extremely cramping moves like d6).  But even here we see the effects of trying to win the d pawn.  By a very rough count, white is two moves faster in finishing development (his rooks are connected on the back rank and he's castled).  Closer inspection is our queen and knight are poorly placed, and need to be moved again, so it's more like 4 moves behind.

White has a safe king and black has a safe king.

White has a pawn in the center and black does not.

Therefore white is simply better.  In fact when such a list turns out like this, often one side is already objectively winning even if material is still even.

This is a very simple analysis of an opening without going into details.  Just look at 1) development, 2) king safety, and 3) if someone has more pawns in the center. 

This is not GM strength analysis.  Deep analysis is beyond both of us.  But instinctively I would never go for the pawn due to the thought process of counting attackers and defenders while you tried it.  After the 8th move, I could see white is better due to experience in general, and experience with such a checklist.  And although there are exceptions, this simple checklist will take you far, and as you progress you'll pick up on different exceptions.

Anyway, most important points are identifying the threats, asking what happens if moves are ignored, and the 3 points opening checklist. 

In your analysis I often see you making very reactionary moves (e.g. 9.Nd2).  IMO you should work on identifying a specific threat, and then work on trying your best to see if you can ignore the threat... and especially when there is no threat to begin with, just ignore their move and keep developing (9.Nf3), castle, improve your worst placed piece, etc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other than 9.Nd2, the line of your analysis starting 8...Ne4 looks pretty good.  11.Rxa5 lets white win the c pawn later, and I'd wonder if instead of 12.Nc4 can white win the stray knight with a move like 12.Rb2?  Looks scary.

Anyway, hope all that helps :)

The position does not require "deep" analysis. here is a "shallow" one: