Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper In this game black sacks a bishop early on. Is this some sort of gambit, or an inaccurate gamble? Both are low-mid rated players.
These types of crude sacrifices are perfect for bughouse, but simply don't work in real chess. White did a nice job repelling black's "attack". Before sacrificing on f2, Black should've asked himself "What has white done wrong to justify this sacrifice?" The answer, of course, is that White hasn't done anything wrong. He played normal opening moves and Black only has two pieces developed, which simply isn't enough to get an attack going, especially since one of those pieces is going to be sacrificed. It wasn't just a miscalculation as the previous poster said; oftentimes sacs can't be calculated out to the finish. It was a poor strategic decision. White has ample defenders, and Black simply isn't developed enough to give the attack any possibility of success. There was no follow up after Ng4.
Originally posted by chesskid001 These types of crude sacrifices are perfect for bughouse, but simply don't work in real chess. White did a nice job repelling black's "attack". Before sacrificing on f2, Black should've asked himself "What has white done wrong to justify this sacrifice?" The answer, of course, is that White hasn't done anything wrong. He played normal opening moves and B ...[text shortened]... ugh to give the attack any possibility of success. There was no follow up after Ng4.
In reply to the original topic - I think it was simply an arbitrary exchange designed to prevent white from castling. Some players (particularly the kinds I play down here in the 'bagain basement' rating zone) believe it's worth losing a knight or bishop in order to expose their opponent's king.