1. Columbus, Ohio
    Joined
    29 Apr '08
    Moves
    19039
    15 Jul '08 02:57
    Hi all,

    In one of my games (and never mind which, it's still ongoing) I've recently chosen to take what is for me a major gamble and sacrifice my queen while my opponent's queen was still on the board. The move seems despite all chess logic to have gained me a material advantage that I didn't have beforehand, and I'm feeling confident that I'll take home a win from it.

    This move's got me thinking: under what general circumstances would you willingly sac a queen if there was no guarantee that you'd get your oppenent's queen out of the deal? Needless to say, I ask that you do not comment on any ongoing games, whether mine or otherwise.
  2. Joined
    26 Jun '06
    Moves
    59283
    15 Jul '08 02:59
    Originally posted by hphovercraft
    Hi all,

    In one of my games (and never mind which, it's still ongoing) I've recently chosen to take what is for me a major gamble and sacrifice my queen while my opponent's queen was still on the board. The move seems despite all chess logic to have gained me a material advantage that I didn't have beforehand, and I'm feeling confident that I'll take ...[text shortened]... to say, I ask that you do not comment on any ongoing games, whether mine or otherwise.
    yeah, so you shouldnt even write this much imo
  3. Joined
    07 Jan '08
    Moves
    34575
    15 Jul '08 03:16
    Well he can write it but we can't comment even in general terms until the game is done. Let us know when it's over and post the game!
  4. Joined
    21 Feb '06
    Moves
    6830
    15 Jul '08 09:35
    I think that beginners find it very difficult to play without their queen, even if they have enough other material to compensate for it. There are a couple of opening lines in which one side "sacrifices" their queen for three pieces. I've always found these fascinating.

    Of course exchanging ones queen for two rooks is fairly common, and in the right sort of position the fact that the two rooks can attack a square / piece twice can mean that they overwhelm the queen. Here is a game in which my opponent gained a decisive advantage by swapping his queen for my two rooks (although I was in quite a lot of trouble before then): Game 3583709. Notice how he cleverly stopped my queen from infiltrating his position - if I had managed to get my queen behind his pawns I might have had chances of a draw.
  5. Standard memberAttilaTheHorn
    Erro Ergo Sum
    In the Green Room
    Joined
    09 Jul '07
    Moves
    520300
    15 Jul '08 10:19
    Bobby Fischer was very good at playing with 2 rooks against a queen, but of course 2 rooks are considered a bit stronger than a queen so that's not really a sacrifice. Nevertheless, he was excellent at playing the other side of the board in such circumstances too. It all comes down to the position. If you get control of more space and have active pieces with the initiative, trading off your queen for 3 minor pieces is probably worth it, but it's the circumstances that decide this question. And you need good technique too because you can't afford to be inaccurate after such a trade.
  6. I pity the fool!
    Joined
    22 Jan '05
    Moves
    22874
    15 Jul '08 10:33
    Here is a high level game, which I was reminded of when reading this topic.

    Game 4079571

    Dont be deceived by cludis relatively low rating - he was near enough a 2300 at the time of this tournament.
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    15 Jul '08 10:39
    Originally posted by Fat Lady
    I think that beginners find it very difficult to play without their queen, even if they have enough other material to compensate for it. There are a couple of opening lines in which one side "sacrifices" their queen for three pieces. I've always found these fascinating.

    Of course exchanging ones queen for two rooks is fairly common, and in the right sort ...[text shortened]... ition - if I had managed to get my queen behind his pawns I might have had chances of a draw.
    not bad, queen moves, checkmate!
  8. Joined
    03 Oct '05
    Moves
    86698
    15 Jul '08 16:21
    Originally posted by hphovercraft
    Hi all,

    In one of my games (and never mind which, it's still ongoing) I've recently chosen to take what is for me a major gamble and sacrifice my queen while my opponent's queen was still on the board. The move seems despite all chess logic to have gained me a material advantage that I didn't have beforehand, and I'm feeling confident that I'll take ...[text shortened]... to say, I ask that you do not comment on any ongoing games, whether mine or otherwise.
    Of course, the most famous example is the Morphy v. Duke of Brunswick / Count Isadore game. Q sacrifice won the game.

    If, however, you suggest a Q sacrifice on a 'feel' rather than obvious win, proably I would not risk it.
  9. Joined
    21 Feb '06
    Moves
    6830
    15 Jul '08 16:301 edit
    One of the best queen sacrifices I have ever seen, from the best attacking player of all time!

    Lev Polugaevsky vs Rashid Gibiatovich Nezhmetdinov



    And this was against Polugaevsky in a serious tournament, not a couple of amateurs in an opera box.
  10. Joined
    25 Apr '06
    Moves
    5939
    15 Jul '08 16:32
    Originally posted by Fat Lady
    One of the best queen sacrifices I have ever seen, from the best attacking player of all time!

    Lev Polugaevsky vs Rashid Gibiatovich Nezhmetdinov

    [pgn][Event "Sochi 28th RSFSR ch"]
    [Site "Sochi 28th RSFSR ch"]
    [Date "1958.??.??"]
    [EventDate "?"]
    [Round "?"]
    [Result "0-1"]
    [White "Lev Polugaevsky"]
    [Black "Nezhmetdinov"]
    [ECO "A54"]
    [WhiteElo ...[text shortened]... evsky in a serious tournament, not a couple of amateurs in an opera box.
    Thanks, it has been a while since I have seen that one.
  11. Columbus, Ohio
    Joined
    29 Apr '08
    Moves
    19039
    16 Jul '08 01:53
    Originally posted by Badwater
    Well he can write it but we can't comment even in general terms until the game is done. Let us know when it's over and post the game!
    Fair enough. I'll play it out, then post the game for all to poke fun at. Especially if I lose. 😉
  12. washington
    Joined
    18 Dec '05
    Moves
    47023
    16 Jul '08 02:04
    Trading a queen for a rook and bishop is usually not too good. It usually ensures a draw and is not often a win depending on the position. Trading a queen for two rooks is also usually a draw, but often too hard to win the game unless you are already up in matieral. I will trade a queen for 3 pieces however. You have to analyze it probably 5-6 moves ahead if you are to sacrafice.
  13. SubscriberHelder Octavio Borges
    Luso-brasileiro
    Cajamar, SP
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    71653
    16 Jul '08 02:52


    See Thread 46061, 13th post. But the precedents are good, too.
  14. Joined
    23 Sep '07
    Moves
    23415
    16 Jul '08 03:23
    depends on the position but 3 pcs are almost always better than a queen. The problem is you have to be good enough to co-ordinate all 3 pcs. Weaker players usually find the queen easier because it's just 1 piece to worry about.
  15. Columbus, Ohio
    Joined
    29 Apr '08
    Moves
    19039
    27 Jul '08 15:182 edits
    For those who were interested, the game in question is now complete. I made the sacrifice and was very happy with the result of 2 rooks against a queen, except for the colossal blunder which came about a few moves later. Clearly, I am not Bobby Fischer. Here's the game:

    Game 5130650
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree