Major Disaster

Well done.

Now please post the game you mentioned in the original post.

"I'm gonna go for it"

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Well done.

Now please post the game you mentioned in the original post.

"I'm gonna go for it"

Ok, this is it. It was the final round match with a whole bunch of us on 3.5. I'd already faced a Colle in round 2 (my first round since I took a bye) and really wasn't happy to face another...

A quick disclaimer or two:

When I played 13. ... Bxe5 I was thinking 14. fxe5 Nxg4!? (thinking I was setting a sort of trap) 15. Qxg4!? Nxe3! Only once I'd actually played 14. ... Nxg4 did I realise that 16. Qh3! Qg5+ 17. Kh1 and then defend the mate threat. Fortunately, my opponent didn't see that either.

It was after black's 20th move that white spent a long time thinking before "I'm gonna go for it". It nearly stopped my heart.

Originally posted by Meadows
Ok, this is it. It was the final round match with a whole bunch of us on 3.5. I'd already faced a Colle in round 2 (my first round since I took a bye) and really wasn't happy to face another...

A quick disclaimer or two:

When I played 13. ... Bxe5 I was thinking 14. fxe5 Nxg4!? (thinking I was setting a sort of trap) 15. Qxg4!? Nxe3! Only once I'd a ...[text shortened]... 1+ Kh8 23.Rg3 Bd3 24.Rag1 Be4 25.e6+ f6 26.Rf1 Rg8 27.Rxg8+ Kxg8 0-1[/pgn]

Instead of Qxh6, what about 21. Rg1 Kh8 22. Rxg7?! - I would have gone for that, or at least, it is worth investigating.

Originally posted by Meadows
I was playing at a congress last weekend. Rather than bore you with any of my games (not even the one where my opponent took a deep breath, said, "I'm gonna go for it" and then incorrectly sacrificed his queen! 😵 ) I'd like to share a game we found.

At the end of the Sunday a bunch of scoresheets had been left by a player from the major (125 - 155 BCF) ...[text shortened]... ves and blundered a bishop in that time then resigned, but I think this is enough.

Hi,

Sorry to dissapoint you, but it is not original...I have read a book many years back (written by Volodea Vaisman) which was having a bunch of games with this cute pattern...and he was saying that it is even a bit more interesting and more difficult to see when the f pawn is not there at all..
for example like black would have had the pawn at f6 instead of f7...
it is less natural to sack a piece on an empty square...

Originally posted by heinzkat
Instead of Qxh6, what about 21. Rg1 Kh8 22. Rxg7?! - I would have gone for that, or at least, it is worth investigating.

Yeah that's what I looked at with some friends afterwards, but 21. ... Be2 was what I'd got planned in the game and it works out nicely (I think).

Originally posted by vipiu
Hi,

Sorry to dissapoint you, but it is not original...I have read a book many years back (written by Volodea Vaisman) which was having a bunch of games with this cute pattern...and he was saying that it is even a bit more interesting and more difficult to see when the f pawn is not there at all..
for example like black would have had the pawn at f6 instead of f7...
it is less natural to sack a piece on an empty square...

Sure it's not original! I believe there's a Fischer game where he played the same tactical trick against someone back in his very early days. I just liked that it was actually played in the same room as me 🙂

Edit: First search reveals this: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008376 Maybe this is what I was thinking of.

Gosh what was he thinking of.



I wonder if he planned e6+ now when he sacced his Queen.
missing f6 as a defence.

I hope you bought the lad a pint.

Originally posted by Meadows
😲 Were you at Frome!?

Well, I wasn't playing if this is what you wanted to know!!!
Just checking How Jim (James Sherwin) was doing.😀

That is a funny sacrifice yes 🙂 why not rook g1.. as they said.

talk about steeling defeat from the jaws of victory...