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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 08 May '11 12:39 / 1 edit
    A Brand new Opening Trap.
    Plus Queen Sacrifices with four positions to test your skill.

    Blog 4
  2. 09 May '11 14:00
    Well that did not take long.

    Porky asked for and inspired the blog about Queen sacs.
    Lo and behold. He sacs his Queen....and wins!

    Good Game Porky. Bravo!

  3. 10 May '11 19:06 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Porky asked for and inspired the blog about Queen sacs.
    Lo and behold. He sacs his Queen....and wins!

    [White "Flying Dwarf"]
    [Black "Porky1016"]

    26. Rd3d8 Qc8xd8 27. Rd1xd8 Rb8xd8
    I'm not sure it counts as a sac when you get two rooks for the queen, especially when you're already a pawn ahead. Still, good attack.

    Anyway, about your column. I think there is another reason why queen sacs are easier to compute than minor sacs, a reason which is the reverse side to the one you mention. A queen sac has to work, and work decisively. On a minor sac you can get away with more, and that means that you have to compute more.
    You can get compensation for a minor piece sac in initiative, positional advantages, you name it. Even if you don't get a decisive attack there and then, you may be able to calculate that you will, in all versions, get some kind of advantage which may, in the long term, win you the game, or which will at least mean that you will not lose it because you are left a piece down with no compensation. It's easier to get that compensation, but that does mean that you have to look at all the ways in which you might or might not get it.
    A queen sac? You win, or you lose. There is no compensation for losing the queen except two rooks, or a handful of minor pieces. And this has to be forced. Two bishops and a destroyed king position almost never cuts it, when you have given away your queen. When it does cut it, it almost always does so in a forced path. If you cannot see, and prove, that the queen sac mates, the queen sac loses.

    Case in point. In my last finished game, after a mediocre opening, I managed to sink a bishop into his h7 pawn. I did not bother to compute all variations to the end. It wasn't necessary; something else was, something harder. I knew that if he took the safer-looking path, I'd mate him (or win his queen), but if he moved his king to g6, I'd still have compensation for the bishop in a pawn, an exposed king, and an ongoing, strong attack. I was almost confident that this would be quite enough to win the game even with a bishop less, but I had to trust my intuition on this.
    After the game (in which my opponent took the mating path, relieving me of having to prove my intuition correct) my computer confirmed that I would have been ahead, but as I said, during the game I did not know this - I believed it. It was, in a way, a gamble. I found the sac, and I doubted. I couldn't prove that it worked, and I had to make a judgement call. I now know that it was correct, but it was still a will-I-or-won't-I decision.
    Had it been my queen that I would have lost on h7, the decision would have been much easier. No clear win - no sac. With a queen sac, there are - at least, for us mortals who aren't Kasparov - no judgement calls. You compute that it's correct, no intuition and no internal discussion involved, or you don't do it. At least, I don't.

  4. 10 May '11 22:49
    Hi S.Blue.

    Actually had a mid-section about how minor piece sacs just for the unclear play
    are something players consider. The Cochrane Gambit for example.

    Adding a player would never really consider a Queen sac just for unclear play.
    (you need your Queen to be part of the unclear play your are getting.)

    But found myself writing up my ass and going nowhere.
    Then I remembered what the question was about so scrapped it.

    Get them to overcome the fear of throwing in the Queen.

    Show them examples of players graded the same as them tossing in Queens
    to prove such a sac is not just the property of the good guys.

    So one wee step at a time.

    I've got them looking for Queen sac combinations to mate Kings.
    All I've done is add one spike to one running shoe.

    The trouble with a lot of student players is they start running before
    learing how to tie their shoe laces.

    Armed with a few opening books and a handful of maxims...double pawn lose..
    isolated pawns spell doom...Bishops are better than Knights....etc etc
    and off they go to conquer the world.

    There are positons where a Knight is better than a Bishop.
    Doubled pawns need not be fatal.
    Isolated pawns can be a bonus in the ending, better than connected pawns.

    The Kings are holding the pawns. This is a draw.

    White is lost.

    Even the rule about two Rooks beating a Queen does not hold water.
    Certainly not on the 1400 DB.

    2,666 games with a lone Queen v 2 Rooks (no other pieces).

    The Queen won = 1,196
    The Two Rooks won = 840
    Draws = 330

    There are solo Queen positions and there are two Rook positions.
    Using the two Rooks does require a certain amount of skill
    which may be beyond weaker players (hence the high Queen score).

    You have to get the Rooks working well together.
    This means team work, being able to plan ahead and not
    blundering away one of the Rooks.

    All the Queen player has to do is spot the loose Rook
    and fork or skewer it. A tactic not beyond most players at the level.