Fun attacking game

Many of my games follow that pattern... (sacrificing for a nebulous king hunt). Of course on a totally different level - Tal was the high priest of the art - and so were Kasimdjanov, even Kasparov...

If I didn't mention forced mate it's because I didn't see it!! You are right - 23. Qh6+ is mate in two!

<Urk> also found 25. Be2, which is another forced mate that I missed. 

With all these forced mates, it's unbelievable that I finally did manage to win... maybe I didn't really believe in my attack, as it was based on fraud?

I had to resort to another piece of bluffing, with 27. Be4... 

Crazy game, indeed...

And it's true - you get an open king with enemy pieces close to it - good things happen: chases, penetrations, mates, forks winning other pieces... it's definitely something to explore. 

I had a natural aversion to attacks like this because the outcome seemed random to me.

But I feel like just now I'm starting to see some of the logic involved in these attacks and defenses. Of course I'd read bits and pieces, but the positions never actually made sense to me. Recently though I've started to have some ideas on my own which is exciting. I've tried some in blitz. Some are bad of course, but some work out.

Not that the wheels I chisel are anything new. It's all been done before.

Right now I'm trying a lot of Nxg2 or Nxg7 sacrifices. Or any sac to remove the g pawn (like maybe Nh3+ or Nh6+ and I hope they capture). The g pawn seems important because if you can remove it, a lot of lines open, and the h pawn and possibly the f pawn become isolated.

Or lets say if h6 has been played. Bxh6 gxh also removes the g pawn.

I don't know if I'm imagining it, but that's something I've seen a lot of recently and seems to be an important idea... but I've never seen it mentioned in books.

Obviously a bad opponent, but this lets me try things.

Before I wouldn't have been sure how to continue, but here I came up with Nh5 to take on g7. The engine likes the idea, but basically says I didn't prepare it enough.

 This isn't as exciting as your game, but before I never would have even considered Nxg7. Baby steps

And in this game I was too reserved, not going for it soon enough.

Hi <The_Chin>

I was reading your first post and thinking - "I should ask him to post a game" - then you seem to read my thoughts and post a couple!

Your idea about the key-importance of the g-pawn (in isolating the h- and f- pawns), and it being worth a whole piece as a matter of principle is really interesting. 

You manufacture an attack out of thin air in game one, by especially manoeuvring a knight to that area, just to eliminate that pawn. 

This can work, in my opinion, in either of the following cases:

1) You already have so many pieces in the area (say, you have five and he has two plus the pawns) that after one (your sacrificed knight) disappears, you still have plenty to attack there, his king is "wounded" (the g-pawn is missing) and he can't bring reserves fast enough to care for the wounds (say, put a bishop or even a rook on g7, a knight on f8/g6, you get the idea); or - 

2) Your opponent is weak and doesn't use his best resources in defense. It's good to be daring in attack, but you should also take defense into account. Of course, sometimes you take it into account, see that you attack doesn't work, but just don't care!! (see the OP here); or - 

3) It's blitz, you count on the opponent "dropping his pants" in panic and not finding the correct defenses in view of the time constraints. Sometimes it does work (again, see OP here) - and sometimes it doesn't (see half a million games that I didn't publish and which ended in disasters! Very often also disasters for MY opponents, who are over-zealous attackers, as I can defend most capably in such situations).

- - - - - 

Personally, I take the sacrificers-over-the-g-pawn as a challenge - as they obviously see me as a patzer who will fold easily. 

Let's take your game 1 here - after ...Nxg7. 

I thought that 18...Bxg5 was a panic reaction and gave you everything you wanted - full control of the black squares. 

Indeed, by taking on g5, your opponent solved for you an inherent problem in many attacking setups - that being, that the bishop AND the knight cannot occupy g5 at the same time!

So long as you didn't bring a piece to g5, the opponent has to fear either piece going there. 

Once the N is on g5 - your opponent can heave a breath of relief: at least your B isn't going there!

And vice versa. 

This means that on 18. Ng5, he can coolly play 18...Rg7, with a view to 19...Nf8 and 20...Rg6 and he will win. 

He can play 18...Rg7 as he doesn't need to fear Bg5 and Bf6 like in the game - of course, your knight is standing on g5 - and the rook on g7 provides ample defense for both of the sensitive squares h7 and f7, while affording black time to push the attack back with his extra piece - as you really had no preponderance of attackers, and your sacrifice was purely a matter of whim. 

Instead, by playing ...Bxg5 he lets you get BOTH the N and the B to g5 - he allows you to use the N to "soften" his defenses in the area, and then the entry of the B is decisive - you no longer have the dark squared B that you needed to push him back - and suddenly it's WHITE who is winning. 

In the OP there is some logic behind my attack, as his ...Ra8, ..Bd7 and ...Na5 are far away from the action. As we saw, if he didn't refute my idea right away, my idea became powerful - exactly because I suddenly had a "local material advantage" in the K-side - and could win any way I wanted - 

The CHIN way (23. Bh6+)

The URK way (25. Be2) 

Or the SOLSKYTZ way (very inferior - it was 27. Be4?!?!?! and gradual devastation - and I'm sure that my opponent missed important defensive resources along the way). 

Another thing on your "ode to the g-pawn" is that really everything depends on specifics. In some cases the elimination of the g-pawn is the key to the position. Some other times it's the h-pawn that disappears first, sometimes the f-pawn - there are really no hard and fast rules - but still your idea is very much worth paying attention to. 

By the way - in view of the way your opponent DID defend, your first game was very exciting. It doesn't matter if the attack leads to MATE or to win of the exchange - you got in there, you took a risk, it paid and you came out the winner - that's quite enough excitement for one day :-)

Your second game is totally a different story - after your Nh5, just look at those pieces on b6, b7, c7, with those doubled c-pawns - your opponents pieces are irrelevant, there are problems of transportation for the black pieces between the wings, you rule the long black diagonal that points straight at the king, your queen is in the area, you can plant a knight on d5, your rooks are ready to come to aid - really the classical prerequisites to a superb sacrifice, that isn't in the least bit speculative - all of your forces are in the area, his aren't and can't get there easily - and you need a way to break in - so of course Nf6+ doesn't even require much calculation. 

You still calculate, of course - but you do it for your own pleasure. You already know that it should work!

(I miss such sacrifices right and left, of course - but you get the idea). 

Finally, in that game (game 2) your force preponderance was so great, and his difficulties in involving his pieces in play so permanent, that you could win any way you wanted - even with a delay of 10-15 moves, your attack was as inevitable as it was strong, sacrifice or no sacrifice. 

These ideas are basically new to me, so it's good to try it out. Later I want to try sacs on the h pawn and maybe get a feel for that. Blitz against weaker players gives me opportunities and the confidence to experiment  I agree it depends on the position whether these can work or not.

And like you said, there are better defenses. One thing I noticed while analyzing with an engine, is it will say I'm better but I have no idea why... then I realize even though the attack is over it's saying I have positional compensation like a pawn or two plus really active pieces. That way of thinking (success even if there is no mate) used to also feel random to me, but now I'm starting to appreciate that too.

For example in the first game when you improved black's defense, the engine says I'm "only" down about a pawn. Ok, two pawns for a piece, that may be expected, but even though the attack failed, I may still have good practical chances (maybe not that game, but just in general).

Also my basic approach to all positions is to use the static advantages. So trying to hold an advantage through things like initiative and open lines while ignoring material and pawn structure is a new way of playing for me. I hope if I can strengthen this area then I'll improve as a player overall... going over my tournament games, one of my weaknesses I've decided is over valuing static features like pawn structure.

Dear <The_Chin>

1. It's true - sometimes you don't go for mate, but for continued pressure, even if you stay down a piece for a pawn or two - and sometimes it's enough and sometimes it isn't

2. I do see that Stockfish gives you (after my better defense) a zero-point-something disadvantage, as it found a way for you to gain a second pawn - and indeed, the game is very dynamic and many things can happen. It's by no means easy to exploit the extra piece - although I do suspect that in such positions it's easier to hold as white if you're Stockfish... :-) 

A human can make one or two imprecise moves - and suddenly the "magic" is gone, and he's just down a piece for a pawn or two with usual play - OH NO !!!!

3. And yes - I remember that an important part (for me) in climbing higher than 1800 or 1850 was exactly that - learning to appreciate the dynamic, not only the static. I got a lot of "static" from Nimzowitsch - and used to ignore the dynamics to my detriment. 

Learning to appreciate the dynamics of the position and dynamic advantages, and to evaluate them correctly, can take a player very very high.