24 May 07
Suppose after
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 Nf6
4.Bxf7+ ?!?
The king will take the bishop, but no longer has the option to castle. Is this prudent?
NOTE= I am playing a game right now as black, and while unlikely, white does have this move available. By the time this is posted, my opponent may very well have moved. But I was just curious, if sacrificing a bishop to prevent a castle is a wise move.
24 May 07
Originally posted by pawntorook4After 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 Nf6 white should not play 4.Bxf7+ ?? because its giving up a piece for pawn with almost no compensation.
Suppose after
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 Nf6
4.Bxf7+ ?!?
The king will take the bishop, but no longer has the option to castle. Is this prudent?
NOTE= I am playing a game right now as black, and while unlikely, white does have this move available. By the time this is posted, my opponent may very well have moved. But I was just curious, if sacrificing a bishop to prevent a castle is a wise move.
24 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by pawntorook4I figure if your gonna sac a piece to open up your opponents king, your better to do it after he's castled. It all depends on the position of course.
Just a quick note, my opponent HAS moved, and this WAS NOT his move, so any analysis will not affect the game
edit - Just listen to Korch... his opinion is much more valuable 🙂
24 May 07
Originally posted by KorchThanks Korch, I can always count on helpful posters like yourself. I always wondered if giving up the bishop for pawn was made up by taking away the option of castling, moving the rook to a better position and giving protection to the king. Do you know of any game where this was tried?
After 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 Nf6 white should not play 4.Bxf7+ ?? because its giving up a piece for pawn with almost no compensation.
24 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by pawntorook4I dont know any game in which player which is not beginner have tried to play such a crap.
Thanks Korch, I can always count on helpful posters like yourself. I always wondered if giving up the bishop for pawn was made up by taking away the option of castling, moving the rook to a better position and giving protection to the king. Do you know of any game where this was tried?
P.S. Maybe in 1 or 2 min bullet games someone can try to play this to make opponent think a little bit more than usually.
24 May 07
2 edits
Originally posted by pawntorook4Stopping the castle & opening up KS defence is ok if you have other developed pieces to back it up, but is foolish if that's the only reason to give away a piece for a pawn.
Thanks Korch, I can always count on helpful posters like yourself. I always wondered if giving up the bishop for pawn was made up by taking away the option of castling, moving the rook to a better position and giving protection to the king. Do you know of any game where this was tried?
Here's an example of a bad sac after castling- I needed further development after move 18 as black here:
Game 3527137
18...Bxg2?
24 May 07
Originally posted by Squelchbelchwhat are you talking about? You were killing him! I'm suprised white won that game.
Stopping the castle & opening up KS defence is ok if you have other developed pieces to back it up, but is foolish if that's the only reason to give away a piece for a pawn.
Here's an example of a bad sac after castling- I needed further development after move 18 as black here:
Game 3527137
18...Bxg2?
[fen]3rr1k1/b1p1qpp1/p1p2n1p/4p3/1PP1P2B/P1N2N2/1Q3Pb1/R4RK1 w - - 0 1[/fen]
24 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by artplayerWell he defended accurately & as I messaged him during the game, I felt I should have played 18...Be6 or 18...Bg4 instead because after the free h3 pawn with the discovered attack on his queen I don't have any other pieces in place for the attack without some fairly clunky moves.
what are you talking about? You were killing him! I'm suprised white won that game.
The bishop sac there was ultra-aggressive & in the end unsound. I was hoping for an error that didn't come & lost the game because of it.
I give the example to show that even with some development the sac can be bad, but in the Sicilian example given by the O.P the sac is a blunder.
25 May 07
Originally posted by pawntorook4I've seen it a lot in bullet games, but in slower time controls you have more time to make use of the material advantage. I don't think its any good.
Suppose after
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 Nf6
4.Bxf7+ ?!?
The king will take the bishop, but no longer has the option to castle. Is this prudent?
NOTE= I am playing a game right now as black, and while unlikely, white does have this move available. By the time this is posted, my opponent may very well have moved. But I was just curious, if sacrificing a bishop to prevent a castle is a wise move.