Your best or most beautiful sacrifice

thats why people smart enough like me play the scotch gambit

SMCB1997- Nice game! The result was too bad. Where did Fritz say you lost the advantage?

Well I had an immediate advantage after Bxf7, but it didnt win me any pawns, so it turns out that (according to Fritz) I never really had that much of an advantage! My opponentt played what I think were the best moves possible in order to defend, and there was no real breakthrough, despite his king being in the centre.

Here's a queen sacrifice someone played and posted here on chess.com some time ago. I don't have the link to the actual game, only the nice combination at the end.

The single move here I'm most proud of, almost a puzzle like double interference theme...

It wins immediately, but maybe not so easy to spot.

I want to add this Exchange Sac. I'm proud of it (even tough I'm still not sure it was 100% soud), because it turned a difficult game into a clear victory.

I think it was sound...good game

Actually, chess.com's computer says it is "inaccurate", because of Bxf5, which leads to an "equal game". 

Never listen to the computers.Computers say that a lot of beautiful sacrifices of our great chess players(like Morphy,Anderssen,Tal) are bad.If all players would play like computers say,we would not have masterpieces like the "evergreen game" or the games where Tal beautifully sacrificed and won ! I don't really care if they are bad or not.Chess is an art not a war or science.Chess is almost dead because of these computers .I think your sacrifice was nice and for me that's enough.

A sacrifice doesn't need to be sound, it just needs to cause enough problems for your opponent that they lose it. It might not work on a computer, that knows no fear or time management problems, but guys like Tal made a living on showing GMs who thought their s#!+ didn't stink that they could never be like computers in this way. There's always the human component and psychology to play on, that is why chess isn't dead yet.

I agree about the psychological component of the game,but I still think that chess is almost dead because top players play like computers more and more and grandmaster games end in draws many many times .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EuxVOgrEig

I normally don't care about the opinion of computers in my games, as they find my opening repertoire quite "inaccurate". It was just that I was curious about it being "perfectly sound" or simply beautiful. But the most important thing about the sac is that it worked.

That's one of the tricks I like to play against the Najdorf: you sac a piece for pawns, but you get connected passed pawns on the a, b an sometimes also on the c file.