Pulled this into another thread, that other lad is still having fun
saccing Knights on f7. Don't want to hijack it.
"... But it is apparent I need practice defending the position after the sac on f7."
Of course you do, we all do.
Defending such positions is very very hard, it is much easier to play
them as the attacker.
Take speculative sacrifices. (and that Knight x f7 is pure specualtion.)
I think I'd seriously struggle to find 10 sound middle game mating
combinations in the -1400 DB. Where the initial spec/sac was sound.
I could post 10 of 1,000's where the attack should have been beaten off
but the defender blundered.
(Also it quite easy to set up a search to find mates and go backwards
on them to see the blunder. Harder to search for a sound defence
as the game does end in mate from the unsound attack.
I need an unsound attack button!)
It's how we are brought up, all these White to play and win diagrams/puzzles.
Not many Black to play and defend diagrams/puzzle knocking about.
The solution in some cases of these 'Black to play and defend puzzles'
would take pages.
(... and would probably be some of the most important pages of chess we
have ever studied.)
Chess writers are to blame (very much me included.)
We go way overboard on a good sac and (as I do) praise the spec-sac
to the highest heavens. What a about speculative defensive that turns
out to be sound...To be very honest I don't think I could spot one.
And how many times have I written:
"The first to attack wins because players cannot defend themselves."
"Have complete faith in your opponent, the defender, blundering."
SO we open a book and see: Black to play and defend puzzle:
"Black is under a heavy attack, find the move that quells the attack
and leaves the position level."
Well yours truly will skipping straight past that one.
What is the next diagram. Ho Ho. Within secondsI can see it's
A Classical Bishop sacrifice.
Sac check, Knight check, Queen mate threat, Rook lift, mate.
Solved it without even setting up the bits 'OH Boy am I good'.
Closes book. Opens same book 10 years later, solves same
Classic Bishop Sacrifice. "Yes I'm still good."
Why did I just give the word diagram and no actual diagram?
I don't have an example in mind. (that is pretty awaful when you think about it.)
I'm not talking about a tactical defensive move like here.
Black to play and win, when it appears he can do nothing to stop Qh5 and mate.
The answer is 1...Nxe6 answering 2.Qh5 with 2...Qxg2+ and the Knight fork.
But even then (and this explains why writers tend to shy away from this stuff.)
There are still tries that the enquiry mind might want to look at.
1... Nxe6 2. Qg4 Ng5 3. f4 Nf7.
Black holds out.
There are other defensive moves for Black but you can see if I wanted
to cover them all even from this very simple made up position would go on and
on we go and every writer knows the longer the analysis the more chance
of an error creeping in. "If it's long it's wrong." Russain proverb.
Use a computer!
The positions needing study are those that stave off an attack and get you
back into the game. Computers will not show all the sacs (if any)
that lead to a position with say a 4 or 5 only defensive moves being required
if it's unsound.
It may be unsound to a computer but it's 100% blunderland to a human.
The writer will have to recognise these blunderland positions hiding in
there, the type of postions I strongly advocate to drop your opponent into
and thread the reader through the maze.
Far much easier to ditch this Black to defend nonsense, too many variations.
Too much like hard work......very hard work.
Much easier (and every writer is lazy) to show clockwork, sac bang mates
combo's with little need for variations. (guilty as charged!)
Also it's every chess book buyers fault.
Would you spend ages following every variation in how to defend a position.
Not necessarily win it, but to defend it.
Of course not, it's much easier to memorise opening moves.
Hence the ratio: 1000 Opening Books for every book on studying defensive techniques.