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

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    16 Nov '11 22:11 / 4 edits
    Would you guys have traded your knight for 3 pawns on whites move 16 as i did? It meant giving back the knight advantage I already had but it opened up his King...


    Nh4xg6

    White Move16


    Game 8728829
  2. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    16 Nov '11 23:21 / 1 edit
    well frankly I wouldn't have. easy win with a piece up, exchange everything off and snatch the rest of the pawns with that remaining only piece on the board. easy. blitz-easy, very hard to screw up.

    BUT, I don't really see much wrong with your approach either. obviously those unopposed pawns are gonna touchdown one way or another. or, at best/worst blocking them will bind at least one black piece and probably several. most likely black will be forced to sac a piece to annihilate them, and waste several moves to get his king out of there.

    the difference in your approach is, there's a billion ways the game could go. there might be complications, you might slip, black might find some unforeseen counterplay and you might eventually lose. unlikely, but it might happen. in a way, you needed to win the game anew. you only need to win a game once.


    always, always, always take the easy uncomplicated straightforward win. the standard way. kill all counterplay, never give a chance for your opponent to complicate. sometimes it might be giving material, or exchanging like you did. but the bottom line is, it should be decided solely on which continuation is SIMPLER to win for YOU.

    but don't get TOO passive either. or the opponent might just find his way back to a fighting chance. there are loads of forced elementary draws even a piece or a rook up. keep pressure, but take no unnecessary risks.
  3. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    16 Nov '11 23:26
    blitz is absolutely GREAT for learning how to win a won game. when you have 30 seconds left, a piece up, you're forced to mop up fast & efficiently. or you'll lose.
  4. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    16 Nov '11 23:36
    Originally posted by uzless
    Would you guys have traded your knight for 3 pawns on whites move 16 as i did? It meant giving back the knight advantage I already had but it opened up his King...


    Nh4xg6

    White Move16


    Game 8728829

    I would have played Ne5 here instead of Nh4xg6.
  5. Standard member nimzo5
    Ronin
    17 Nov '11 00:30
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    [fen]rn3rk1/pp1b1pb1/2q1p1p1/3p2Pp/2pP1P2/2P1PNB1/PPB4P/RN1QK2R w KQ - 0 15[/fen]
    I would have played Ne5 here instead of Nh4xg6.
    SG- Ne5 makes a lot of sense. Although I might have delayed it and finished developing. It's not like you are going to capture the Bad Bishop so I would get on with it and then decide where the Knight should be.

    OP- The Question of sacrificing in that position is not about material, it is about quality. Without the support of other pieces in the attack, the exchange doesn't seem to improve your position (maybe an engine can prove it is good, but that is well beyond what I can see at the board.)
    I will sack a piece for three pawns in an early middle game if I can get my Queen and a Knight or Rook into the fray. Here you denude the king but Black is able to exchange off all the attacking pieces with ease.

    Forget the material involved and just look at the resulting position- if you can see an advantage than do it, failing to see an advantage than I would keep developing and be patient.
  6. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    17 Nov '11 03:07 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by uzless
    Would you guys have traded your knight for 3 pawns on whites move 16 as i did? It meant giving back the knight advantage I already had but it opened up his King...


    Nh4xg6

    White Move16


    Game 8728829
    If you want to sac Bxg6 seems more fun
    16 ... f7xg6
    17 Nxg6 Re8
    18 Qxh5

    but I agree with others - keep the piece advantage unless its a friendly game of skittles
  7. 17 Nov '11 10:40
    The idea is fine but it's premature on move 16 - White needs more pieces ready to reinforce the attack. Otherwise, Black can too easily exchange the light-square bishops and blockade your pawns on the light squares.

    The knight on h4 is fine, it prevents the key defensive move pawn to f5 for Black. I would have moved out my Q knight first (Nd2-f3-e5) before sacrificing on g6.

    You missed a quick win on your 27th (26....Nf5 was a bad mistake):
    27 g6ch Kg8 (or Kh8 28 Nf7ch transposing)
    28 h7ch Kh8
    29 Nf7ch
  8. 17 Nov '11 13:01
    i think the knight sac was a good shot, particularly in blitz.
  9. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    17 Nov '11 21:54
    Originally posted by geo86012
    You missed a quick win on your 27th (26....Nf5 was a bad mistake):
    27 g6ch Kg8 (or Kh8 28 Nf7ch transposing)
    28 h7ch Kh8
    29 Nf7ch
    Thanks all for the comments. I figured it was safer/smarter to keep the knight but i felt the game would be simpler if i could just continue exchanging pieces until the 3 pawn advantage turned unstoppable. Some of the options you guys have raised though are better.

    As for the quick win GEO, after nf7ch, his king could move to g8 but then i'm in for a new queen and it's just a matter of time after that. I should have seen that but was more focussed on playing safe after my sac. I should have looked closer before moving so hastily!

    Thanks all.
  10. 18 Nov '11 21:28
    black missed the opportunity to set a cute trap with 46..Rb8 47. f8=Q?? Rb1+!=
    of course 47.f8=N+ ruins the fun.
    OP, were you on the lookout for perpetuals?
  11. 22 Nov '11 12:47
    Hi Uzless



    I like the attitude (just the execution was ill timed.)
    Being a piece up measn you have two to sac. There is a lot one can do with
    a two piece sac.

    Chopping 3 pawns for a piece is always a drastic one-way decision.
    Any drastic one-way decisiions should not be taken till one has the bits out.
    So Nd2-F3 (Black can do nothing but wait) and THEN look for tricks.

    As pointed out you missed the quicker win but as usual the lads are just dropping
    moves into a post with no position or examples so let's make sure you have it.



    AlekinesGnu spotted an instructive resource but again he is expecting any
    reader to go back to the opening post, fire up the game to see what he is
    talking about. (chess players are lazy Gnu, you have to meet them ½ way.)
    It would have been better to....

  12. 25 Nov '11 03:46 / 2 edits
    greenpawn34 gave a great article. I won't try and one up him (just an easy way to fail!). I watched a great game, one that will be talked about for awhile which reminded me of this threads title. Who needs three pawns? Lev will do it for two!



    Another shameless plug - I played this game recently and chose to make the proposed sacrifice, I'm censoring out who the game was played with out of respect. He is a great player though for those who undoubtedly will discover him. I of course make no statement that this was sound - but I liked where the ending lead to. I thought with so many tactical shots in front of me there would be a good chance of a slip up.


    Q
  13. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    26 Nov '11 23:12
    Originally posted by PhySiQ
    greenpawn34 gave a great article. I won't try and one up him (just an easy way to fail!). I watched a great game, one that will be talked about for awhile which reminded me of this threads title. Who needs three pawns? Lev will do it for two!

    [pgn][Event "6th Tal Memorial"]
    [Site "Moscow RUS"]
    [Date "2011.11.24"]
    [Round "8"]
    [White "Aronian,L"]
    [B ...[text shortened]... c5 17. dxc6 bxc6 18. Nc3xe4 1-0[/pgn]

    Q
    I was Q's victim, and he definitely had loads of play! It seemed like I only had one move every time it was my turn, until I slipped up and lost. What torture!