@patzering saidMaybe a queen was too much to ask for. How about a game where any piece was lost but the player still won? Obviously, I don't mean a game where a piece was lost, but it didn't matter because mate was inevitable.
My dollar says no 🤔
1 edit
@vivify
This queen sac was shared in another thread.
- 8
- a
- 7
- b
- 6
- c
- 5
- d
- 4
- e
- 3
- f
- 2
- g
- 1
- h
| 1. | e4 | c5 |
|---|---|---|
| 2. | Nf3 | Nc6 |
| 3. | d4 | cd4 |
| 4. | Nd4 | g6 |
| 5. | Nc3 | Bg7 |
| 6. | Be3 | Nf6 |
| 7. | Bc4 | O-O |
| 8. | Bb3 | Ng4 |
| 9. | Qg4 | Nd4 |
| 10. | Qh4 | Qa5 |
| 11. | O-O | Bf6 |
| 12. | Qf6 | Ne2 |
| 13. | Ne2 | ef6 |
| 14. | Nc3 | Re8 |
| 15. | Nd5 | Re6 |
| 16. | Bd4 | Kg7 |
| 17. | Rad1 | d6 |
| 18. | Rd3 | Bd7 |
| 19. | Rf3 | Bb5 |
| 20. | Bc3 | Qd8 |
| 21. | Nf6 | Be2 |
| 22. | Nh7 | Kg8 |
| 23. | Rh3 | Re5 |
| 24. | f4 | Bf1 |
| 25. | Kf1 | Rc8 |
| 26. | Bd4 | b5 |
| 27. | Ng5 | Rc7 |
| 28. | Bf7 | Rf7 |
| 29. | Rh8 | Kh8 |
| 30. | Nf7 | Kh7 |
| 31. | Nd8 | Re4 |
| 32. | Nc6 | Rf4 |
| 33. | Ke2 |
0
Does this count?
Rashid Nezhmetdinov against Oleg Chernikov
@eladar saidI would say it would. Thanks so much.
@vivify
This queen sac was shared in another thread.
[pgn]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Bc4 O-O 8. Bb3 Ng4 9. Qg4 Nd4 10. Qh4 Qa5 11. O-O Bf6 12. Qf6 Ne2 13. Ne2 ef6 14. Nc3 Re8 15. Nd5 Re6 16. Bd4 Kg7 17. Rad1 d6 18. Rd3 Bd7 19. Rf3 Bb5 20. Bc3 Qd8 21. Nf6 Be2 22. Nh7 Kg8 23. Rh3 Re5 24. f4 Bf1 25. Kf1 Rc8 26. Bd4 b5 27. Ng5 Rc7 28 ...[text shortened]... Nd8 Re4 32. Nc6 Rf4 33. Ke2[/pgn]
Does this count?
Rashid Nezhmetdinov against Oleg Chernikov
2 edits
But the Nez game was a deliberate Queen sac, he meant it. At master
level if a player loses a Queen due to an error the game is resigned.
A few games here where a Queen was lost by careless play have been turned around.
In this one Black loses their Queen, a mere six moves late they are taking White's Queen.
ncleveng - Doug Anderson RHP 2010
- 8
- a
- 7
- b
- 6
- c
- 5
- d
- 4
- e
- 3
- f
- 2
- g
- 1
- h
| 1. | e4 | e5 |
|---|---|---|
| 2. | Nf3 | Nf6 |
| 3. | Nxe5 | Nxe4 |
| 4. | Qe2 | Nf6 |
| 5. | Nc6 | Qe7 |
| 6. | Nxe7 | Bxe7 |
| 7. | Qc4 | Nc6 |
| 8. | d4 | O-O |
| 9. | Bd3 | d5 |
| 10. | Qc3 | Bb4 |
| 11. | O-O | Bxc3 |
0
@greenpawn34
It was a deliberate sac but not for a tactical reason. There was no checkmate nor was there a plan to capture the other queen.
But definitely true, the queen was not blundered.
The game is one of the classics. Tal chose it as his favourite non-Tal game.
Engines have gone over it and come to different conclusions as engines have got
better and better. Sometimes they are left on 24 hours looking for a defence.
Poor old Chernikov had to dig out a defence OTB with clock ticking
at time control 40 moves in 2 hours. Most of the comments are of praise.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1260278&kpage=1
@vivify saidBy the time the GM title was invented that was basically impossible. There might be a master game from the 18th or 19th century.
Anyone know of GM games where a player lost a queen and still won the game? I'm not referring to games where the queen was sacrificed for tactical reasons, I mean matches where the queen was legitimately lost.
Do any such games exist?