Can someone help with the analysis of this game?

Hi, I recently played a game where I tried something different from the usual way I play chess.

So, usually I play relatively safe (or I think I do 😛) without too many sacrifices etc unless I think it leads to immediate gains or a mate.

Which is why I thought of trying something different and I made a bold?stupid?dubious? move in one game, which actually worked very well to my advantage. Now, I analysed this with Fritz and it said that the move was a mistake and I should have played a more safe alternative. But then again this is how chess engines think. Therefore I would appreciate some alternative analysis and comments from people who are more advanced than I am. Especially move 18 for black and onwards.




The final position is advantageous for black.

So I would like to know, is there anything to the bishop sacrifice by black, or is it that the game was blundered by white afterwards?. Notice that the game went downhill for white shortly after that move. And white was not a bad player.


My original thought for making this move was that my position at 18 was quite crowded, and I wanted to get his king out in the open and recover possibly the material afterwards if 23. Qxe4, but which didnt happen.

Any comments welcome. Obviously I'd appreciate non-chess engine comments, since I did that already 🙂

This is the position after 19...Nxe4
White played 20.Qd3? after which 20...Nc5! came with a double attack on b2 and the queen.

I think 20.Qe1 planning 21.Nc3 is better, no?

Methinks white was just greedy. Very common at lower levels.

Back in the 1800s it was considered ungentlemanly to decline a sacrifice, these days we play to win by any means necessary. White could have just recaptured the knight with his rook and won 2 pieces for a rook and pawn. His central pawn mass would remain intact and he'd have a really beautiful position where black really has no counterplay at all:

Hi folks and thanks for the replies.

First of Elmyr.
Yeah that reply was also suggested by Fritz.

19.fxg4 [19.Rxg4!? seems even better 19...Nxg4 20.fxg4 Qc8+-]

Of course it wouldn't have improved my position but perhaps temporarily easing the pressure on my king with one of the rooks gone. Or maybe that is not a good evaluation?

Now regarding Rook and pawn vs Bishop & Knight I always tend to go for that exchange (even without the pawn) because I believe that in the not so experienced hands the rook tends to be better, especially in the end game and you tend to capture one of the other two pieces. Probably that wouldnt cut it with more experienced players.

My original thinking for the move was "This is a longshot and requires a chain of things to happen in order to work" Fortunately they did. Mainly, openning the diagonal for the bishop at g7. For that I required to move the pawn at e5 with a tempo on the Queen so the knight at e2 couldnt block the diagonal with Nd4.

Fortunately it did happen although I did not recapture the night at a2. Of course I would never pull that line on a more experienced player or an engine because I realised at the time that it was too risky. I just wanted to see if it had any merit into it. In the game it did help, but I guess we can all agree now that it was not very good in general 🙂

Still I think it is the first ever "positional sacrifice" that I managed to pull and the fact that it worked well will give me a bit more confidence to play a little more tactically. Albeit more carefully 🙂

I guess the biggest problem is how I managed to get stuck in such a tight position up to move 18.



Also the interesting thing is that Frtiz thought that white's blunders were not until much later in 24 with:

24.Qxc5?? not a good decision, because now the opponent is right back in the game [24.Rb1 the rescuing straw 24...Qe5 25.Qf4 (25.Qxc5? is worthless because of 25...c6-+) 25...Nxd5 26.Qxe5 Bxe5 27.Bxd5=] 24...Qe5-+


Also later in

25.Nb5? [25.h5 Rad8 26.Qe3 Nxd5 27.Bxd5 Qxd5+ 28.Ke1-+]

Any comments on that?

Originally posted by vzografos
Hi, I recently played a game where I tried something different from the usual way I play chess.

So, usually I play relatively safe (or I think I do 😛) without too many sacrifices etc unless I think it leads to immediate gains or a mate.

Which is why I thought of trying something different and I made a bold?stupid?dubious? move in one game, which act ...[text shortened]... . Na3b5 c6 26. Nb5c3 Ne7xd5 27. Bc4xd5 cxd5 28. Kd2e3 Ra8c8 0-1[/pgn]

Instead of white's Q takes c5
why not Rb1 and if Qe5
then white Qf4
is white not winning easily?

yeah as I pasted above Fritz thought this move by white was a blunder too.

Personally, I am not very sure if the continuation:

24.Rb1 Qe5 25.Qf4 Nxd5 26.Qxe5 Bxe5 27.Bxd5 makes necessarily a winning game for white.

I suppose then 27..Rfd8 and the bishop is pinned and probably won. Then white is up a knight but black has 4 pawns (albeit a doubled) but 2 of them are passed pawns.

Any other opinions?

Originally posted by vzografos
yeah as I pasted above Fritz thought this move by white was a blunder too.

Personally, I am not very sure if the continuation:

24.Rb1 Qe5 25.Qf4 Nxd5 26.Qxe5 Bxe5 27.Bxd5 makes necessarily a winning game for white.

I suppose then 27..Rfd8 and the bishop is pinned and probably won. Then white is up a knight but black has 4 pawns (albeit a doubled) but 2 of them are passed pawns.

Any other opinions?

One more thing.
I did a chess engine shootout (Fritz12 vs Fritz12) from the position


24.Rb1 Qe5 25.Qf4 Nxd5 26.Qxe5 Bxe5 27.Bxd5 Rfd8

i.e. the game starts from position 28.

The results:

3 ply 0-1
5 ply 1/2 - 1/2
7 ply 1-0
9 ply 1/2 - 1/2

For those who do not know about chess engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ply_%28game_theory%29). The higher the ply the "better" the moves should be.

So to me it seems that this is definitely not a won game for white.