If it's the middlegame, would the exchange transfer it into an endgame with very little material per side? Depending on how many pieces your opponent has, and what pieces they are, (s)he could still stop them.
On connected passed pawns.
Sort:
approx. 3 pieces per side, 2 major 1 minor. In general its the "middle late" middlegame.
Moves 18 to 21, you see me sacrificing a piece for a strong pawn offense. http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=872261348
Your question is hard to answer, it all depends on the position, how many pieces are on board, if you're able to defend your pawns, if the opponent has initiative and so on so forth. But study the game I played above, even thought it's blitz, and see what I managed to do even though I sacrificed a piece!
4 connected passed pawns is worth the piece easily. In your game originaleaz, white is winning after the sacrifice, but was also winning before Bxf6??. After Bxf6, the simple Nxf6 axb4 Nd5 followed by Nxb4 should just about equalize.
I have to admit I probably made my question a bit too general. But what if Black had great defensive power towards the queenside (i.e. all his pieces were clustered there) with 4 connected passed White pawns and White being a piece down. White has adequate defence. This is not a game but just analysis of a variation of an opening which I'm currently undertaking.
It's incredibly complicated though:
That position looks oddly familiar to this game
http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=94114694
Although not the same position, this could be considered a form of cheating. possibly
If I was cheating then Black would not have 4 minor pieces. Yes, my question was based on that but I was just wondering for future insight.
Because of possible defences.
You don't have to give any analysis or anything like that. Just say "yes, in my opinion it's OK to sac" or "no".
Zigwurst wrote:
That position looks oddly familiar to this game
http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=94114694
Although not the same position, this could be considered a form of cheating. possibly
Since the game is over, we can talk about it.
If your question is whether 10.Ne5 was a good idea knowing that it loses a piece for three pawns in the end of the line, the answer is no. It comes with a big development disadvantage, and you will get slaughtered in no time if Black knows what to do. It is a well-known trap in the two knights defense, and IIRC 9.Nh3 (!) is the theory for that reason (or 8.Qf3 Rb8 9.Bxc6+ etc. where Black sacrificed two pawns for development).
If your idea is whether in a standard middlegame four connected passed pawns vs a piece, with equal development etc. is worth it I would say yes, but of course it depends.
Quote no 4 ...Of Originaleaz....white plays Nd4 and loses...instead if white plays QxKn then white can defend if not win...
Is it worth sacrificing a piece for 4 connected passed pawns (undeveloped mostly) in the middlegame? I can't imagine a scenario where the guy can possibly defend.