Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 24 May '07 20:08
    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.
  2. 24 May '07 20:09
    Just a quick note, my opponent HAS moved, and this WAS NOT his move, so any analysis will not affect the game
  3. Standard member Korch
    Chess Warrior
    24 May '07 20:17
    Originally posted by pawntorook4
    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.
    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.
  4. Standard member bannedplayer306509
    Best Loser
    24 May '07 20:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by pawntorook4
    Just a quick note, my opponent HAS moved, and this WAS NOT his move, so any analysis will not affect the game
    I 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.

    edit - Just listen to Korch... his opinion is much more valuable
  5. 24 May '07 20:21
    Originally posted by Korch
    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.
    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?
  6. Standard member Korch
    Chess Warrior
    24 May '07 20:23 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by pawntorook4
    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?
    I dont know any game in which player which is not beginner have tried to play such a crap.

    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.
  7. 24 May '07 20:41 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by pawntorook4
    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?
    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?
  8. 24 May '07 20:49
    Originally posted by Squelchbelch
    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]
    what are you talking about? You were killing him! I'm suprised white won that game.
  9. 24 May '07 20:57 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by artplayer
    what are you talking about? You were killing him! I'm suprised white won that game.
    Well 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.
    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.
  10. 24 May '07 20:58
    Originally posted by artplayer
    what are you talking about? You were killing him! I'm suprised white won that game.
    Instead of 22...Ng4 (losing the rook) black should have played something like Qg4+ Bg3 Nh5 (just a shallow observation)
  11. 24 May '07 21:13
    Originally posted by ChessJester
    Instead of 22...Ng4 (losing the rook) black should have played something like Qg4+ Bg3 Nh5 (just a shallow observation)
    Too much coffee & going for a flashy quick kill.
  12. 24 May '07 21:15
    Originally posted by Squelchbelch
    Too much coffee & going for a flashy quick kill.
    I hear yah, I've done that a few times myself.
  13. Standard member irontigran
    Rob Scheider is..
    25 May '07 03:15
    there was a great em. lasker game like this...
  14. 25 May '07 11:32
    Originally posted by pawntorook4
    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.
    I'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.
  15. 25 May '07 14:44
    Originally posted by Falco Lombardi
    I'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.
    Hey Falco!! STAR FOX RUELS!!