Guys what do you think of this sacrifice of a rook for 2 pawns in the endgame & winning !!! :D

JayeshSinhaChess
 
 3I0 game. There was nothing gimmicky about the sacrifice. It was not like I had more pieces to play with. It was 2 rooks vs 2 rooks and I sacked both rooks for a rook and getting 2 pawns to the 6th rank.
 
If you want to skip the rest of the game then look at the game from move 26 onwards.
DeirdreSkye

Bad opening but very good endgame! Well done!

JayeshSinhaChess

Thx. Just want to how intuitive was this line that I played towards the end. Would any good player just play that line in a flash? As in is it so naturally the best line that its nothing to be proud of.

aaronprince

33...Bd5 would have been a lot better than what was played. If white advances the pawn, rook takes the other pawn. White moves a rook to try and threaten the bishop, then mission accomplished and some pressure is off.

poucin

Well, u've just discovered that 2 pawns when arrived at 6th or 7th rank cannot be stopped by a rook alone.

Congrats but we know this since a long time wink.png

aaronprince a écrit :

33...Bd5 would have been a lot better than what was played. If white advances the pawn, rook takes the other pawn. White moves a rook to try and threaten the bishop, then mission accomplished and some pressure is off.

 Not so simple : 33...Bd5 34.c6 Rxd6?? 35.c7 wins for white! On 34.c6 Bxc6 35.Rxc6 Rxd6 and we can stop here with a draw.

Dsmith42

It's a nice sacrifice - and the only way to get good at sacrifices is to try them out.

 

Also, 33.  ..Bd5 34. c6 Rxd6? 35. c7! wins, because 35. ..Rxa6 36. cxd8=Q+!, and move of the d8 rook on the back rank loses the d6 rook, 35. ..R8d7 allws the c-pawn to queen with check, etc.

aaronprince

Oh man, I feel foolish now. Thanks for pointing out my error.

Dsmith42

He got 2 pawns for the knight, plus he created a central passed pawn for himself in the process, albeit an isolated one.  It's a speculative sacrifice, but I think he got sufficient compensation for the knight when he gave it up.

EndgameStudier

I agree with the sacrifice. Balac's pieces were undeveloped and white had command of the center files the whole time. I woulda started by moving both rooks to center and then sac.

JayeshSinhaChess

As the IM said, I just figured out something that is well known theory. Having said that atleast I figured it out and will keep it in mind going forward.

 

Also for those questioning the knight sac, the thing was that the opponent was threatening to rip open the position and I felt I would have been left with a terrible structure if I didn't sack the knight. Knight for 2 pawns is a reasonable sack in the position I felt.

ChessicallyInclined

If White's best move after less than 20 moves is to give up a Knight for 2 pawns and questionable compensation, the opening must have gone terribly wrong. As for the ending, this is theory but congrats on figuring it out yourself!

Dsmith42

The knight sac did solve a number of positional issues, in addition to the compensation I noted previously.  It broke the pin on the e-pawn, took the queens off by force (which was important considering how weak you were on the kingside), and nullified black's space advantage.

 

That being said, if your opponent had played 13. ..Bb7 instead of Nd7, he picks up a tempo and gets to castle first.  If there is a refutation of the knight sac, I'd wager it's along that line.

JayeshSinhaChess

After 13. Bb7 14. d6 followed by Bf4 at some point securing the pawn. I think that covers it to some extent.

vishaalkumar25

Nice sac for a good resultthumbup.png

unusualkid

The rook sac at the end was good but you sacked a minor piece for a pawn or two in the opening and that was horrible, game should have been over there.

Dsmith42

Yes, d6 followed by Bf4 does secure the passed pawn, but it costs a couple of tempi to do so, and it makes it harder to link up the c-pawn to the passed d-pawn, which you did to great effect in the actual game.  The knight sac still looks OK on this line, but your opponent's response to it wasn't as strong as it could have been.

 

The folks here who see the early knight sac as "bad" aren't really accounting for the compensation properly - it isn't bad, it's just speculative, and speculative sacrifices can often prove to be quite good.  You obviously saw enough of the compensation to justify it, but after games like this (and I've had a few like this lately myself), it's important to explore the positions to see if your opponent made defensive mistakes.

 

Good example, in this position:

I was playing black, and found 1. ..Bxd3+!, which my opponent fell into with 2. cxd3 Rxf2#.  However, this was not a forced reply (he does not have to accept the sacrifice), and 2. Kd2 can fight on for a while with precise defense.  The best continuation I found for white forced the queens off and left black with a knight, bishop, and two pawns for a rook.  In other words, the offered bishop sac was a sound move, but it takes a lot of analysis to prove it.

ElStevo93
Yeah yeah butt
Chesserroo2

You traded 2 rooks for a rook and bishop. With the advanced pawns, yes that was a good plan. Advancing them was a good plan.

Chesserroo2

9. 0-0 is better than f3. Trading knights pins the queen. 26. Ra1 wins the knight.