My first thread on the theme of the double bishop sac was Thread 88087
. A quick search told me that after that thread of mine there was another one were this theme was discussed Thread 152894
As was discussed in the second thread the conditions that are needed for a double bishop sac to be sound are (quoting from this page: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1035516&kpage=1):
"(A) Weakly defended king with no escape on f7/f8.
(B) The "Horowitz bishops" pointing at g7/h7.
(C) A rook ready to lift in for the fatal check.
(D) No good way to block the check.
Everything's in your shopping cart, so it's time to ring the register! ca-ching!"
So it happens that was happily playing a game of mine and a sound double bishop sac presented itself to me. But I didn't have the Horowitz (Horwitz?) bishops in the traditional way, nor did I need a rook lift to take the full point. Anyway I rolled with it ansd sac'd the first bishop on h7 likes it's called for, gave the check on h5 with my queen likes it's called for, but then sac'd the bishop on f6, incidentally the first documented double bishop sac would have been sound if the second bishop was sac'd on f6 rather than on g7 (that's why we have the name Lasker's combination instead of Owen's combination...):
A game that Miles obviously studied as you can see here:
Anyway, enough with GM games and let us step into my own game:
As you can see my double bishop sac was unorthodox, but it was sound.
PS: I could have played 16. Qh6 and the game would be over quick, but I was expecting my opponent to resign instead of playing 15. ... g6. Since he played on, I decided to play on too