| |
Main
Date: 20 Dec 2005 22:12:35
From: J.L.W.S. The Special One
Subject: Sacrifice of minor piece for two pawns to gain a passed pawn and positional advantage?
|
In my recent games, I have been making positional sacrifices of a minor
piece (usually a Knight) for two wing pawns, which lands me a passed
pawn on the wing, and another positional advantage, such as use of a
hole or piece activity. This sacrifice seems unique and I don't know
any other player who uses such positional sacrifices on a regular
basis. I don't have that many finished games in which I used this
sacrifice, but it has gotten me into strategically won positions on
several occasions (and I subsequently lose due to tactics - refer to my
post "Chess tactical concepts?") and on other occasions my position
collapsed (once again, due to tactics). I would like to hear other's
opinions on this idea, particularly how interesting and sound it is.
One memorable game in which I employed such a positional sacrifice was
my loss as White to ChessColony user Manhattan a month ago. I built up
an overwhelming position but fell into a knight fork and lost. However,
the falling into a Knight fork is not the relevant point here. To talk
about my tactical shortcomings, please post in the "Chess Tactical
Concepts?" thread. This thread is about the positional sacrifice of a
piece for two pawns to gain a passed pawn and another positional
advantage.
Here is the complete game, and the notes I posted on the ChessColony
forum, complete and unabridged:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Qf6 4. Nc3 Nge7 5. O-O a6 6. Ba4 b5 7. Nxb5!
Such positional sacrifices of a minor piece for two pawns to gain a
passed pawn and positional advantage crop up frequently in my games,
and in most of the games I build up a tremendous advantage only to let
it slip away tactically. I wonder whether others have analyzed this
sacrifice, and whether it is sound.
7...axb5 8. Bxb5 Ba6 9. Bxa6 Rxa6 10. Qe2!
White takes the oppurtunity to develop a piece with gain of tempo,
attacking the Rook on a6 and defending the vital e-pawn
10...Ra8 11. Rd1 h6 12. a4
White's pawn starts ching.
12...Ng6 13. b3 Bd6 14. Bb2 O-O 15. Bc3
This move serves to control a5 so the pawn can take another step
forward. However, my King came under fire.
15...Nf4 16. Qe3 Qg6 17. Nh4 Qg4 18. g3?!
Attacks the Knight on f4, defends the one on h4, and gets me into huge
trouble when the h-file opens later. Fortunately, the Knight fork did
not cost me any material here.
18...Ne2+ 19. Kf1 Nxc3 20. dxc3 g5 21. Nf5!
I am very satisfied with this move, which creates a double blow. On one
hand it thrathens a Knight fork with Nxh6+, on the other hand it
threathens to win a Pawn with 22 Nxd6 cxd6 23 Rxd6. Cool, eh?
21...Kh7 22. Nxd6 cxd6 23. Rxd6 Rad8 24. a5 Rda8
Black is condemned to passivity. I believe White is already winning due
to his material advantage and passed pawns.
25. a6 Rfb8 26. b4 Ne7 27. Qd3
White piles up on the d-pawn and defends d1 and the a6-f1 diagonal.
27...Rbd8 28. b5 Qh3+ 29. Kg1?!
I don't know whether I should have protected the h-pawn with this move,
confining the King to this cage. Perhaps if I had sacrificed the
h-pawn, I would not have been checkmated.
29...Nc8 30. Rd5 d6 31. c4 h5 32. c5!
This is another great move of mine. White attacks the pinned d-pawn and
hence wins it. Black then tries to open the h-file, creating mating
threats. I spotted them, but wasn't sure if Black could create
sufficient threats. In the end, he could.
32...h4 33. cxd6 Nb6 34. Rxe5
This is possibly the critical position. White is three pawns up and any
strong player should have no trouble winning by steamrolling his passed
pawns.
34...Kg6 35. Rc5 hxg3
I knew that after 36 hxg3 Rh8, my King would be under heavy fire.
36. fxg3 Rdh8 37. Qd2 f6 38. Rc6 Nd7 39. b6 Ne5!
I was really stunned with this double blow. This attacks the Rook and
threathens a Knight fork on f3. Fortunately, I calmed down and found a
temporary solution.
40. Rc3 Rac8 41. Re3??
The critical mistake. Perhaps 41 Rb3 would have won. I now ran into a
second Knight fork and lost on the spot.
41...Nc4 42. Qd4 Qxh2+ 43. Kf1 Qh1+ 44. Kf2 Rh2#
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2005 13:06:05
From: Barry
Subject: Re: Sacrifice of minor piece for two pawns to gain a passed pawn
|
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
> In my recent games, I have been making positional sacrifices of a minor
> piece (usually a Knight) for two wing pawns, which lands me a passed
> pawn on the wing, and another positional advantage, such as use of a
> hole or piece activity. This sacrifice seems unique and I don't know
I had a similar game recently where I was a pawn up and then sacrificed
a bishop for two pawns to smash the defences around my opponents king.
In the game it led to a swift win but I'm still not sure if it was the
best tactic:
[Event "December 2005 Open Main #1 Tournament"]
[Site "http://www.itsyourturn.com"]
[Date "2005.12.06"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Barry"]
[Black "RICHARD HAMMER"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Ply "37"]
1. d4 e6 2. c4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. Bd2 Nf6 7. e3
O-O 8. Bd3 Ng4 9. O-O Re8 10. Qc2 b6
Black misses the threat to the h7 pawn allowing me a swift smash a grab
raid.
11. Bxh7+ Kh8 12. Bf5
Expecting Bxf5 Qxf5 attacking black's stray knight
12. ... g6
The obvious response would be to bring the bishop back to d3 but instead
I felt like attacking here, sacrificing the bishop for the two remaining
pawns defending black's king.
13. Bxg6 fxg6 14. Qxg6
And material is again even, but black's king is horribly exposed.
14. ... Be6 15. Ng5 Rg8 16. Qh5+?
Bit of a mistake here. I was so pleased to spot the opportunity to
capture black's queen with a knight fork that I missed the infinitely
better Qh7++ mate, which was why I brought the knight up in the first
place. Still, the question remains, was the bishop sacrifice a good plan
in this game...
16. ... Kg7 17. Nxe6+ Kf6 18.Nxd8 Raxd8 19. h3
And faced with losing the knight as well black resigns.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Dec 2005 12:45:59
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Sacrifice of minor piece for two pawns to gain a passed pawn
|
Barry <[email protected] > wrote:
>[Event "December 2005 Open Main #1 Tournament"]
>[Site "http://www.itsyourturn.com"]
>[Date "2005.12.06"]
>[Round "1"]
>[White "Barry"]
>[Black "RICHARD HAMMER"]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[Ply "37"]
>
> 1. d4 e6 2. c4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. Bd2 Nf6 7. e3
> O-O 8. Bd3 Ng4 9. O-O Re8 10. Qc2 b6 11. Bxh7+ Kh8 12. Bf5 g6
> 13. Bxg6 fxg6 14. Qxg6 Be6 15. Ng5 Rg8
>
> [...] Still, the question remains, was the bishop sacrifice a good plan
> in this game...
Looks fairly good to me. You surely can't lose with Black's king that
exposed and there should be plenty of time to break open the centre with
e4 and get your bishop and other knight into the attack. Black can defend
rather better than he did by playing 14... Ne7 (+1 after 12 ply according
to Fritz) but the exchange of bishop for three pawns and naked king seems
like a good plan.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Indelible Perforated.com (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like an E-commerce portal but it's
full of holes and it can't be erased!
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Dec 2005 13:32:09
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Sacrifice of minor piece for two pawns to gain a passed pawn and positional advantage?
|
>the exchange of bishop for three pawns and naked king seems
> like a good plan.
Usually it is.
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Dec 2005 15:16:12
From: Barry
Subject: Re: Sacrifice of minor piece for two pawns to gain a passed pawn
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
>>the exchange of bishop for three pawns and naked king seems
>>like a good plan.
>
>
> Usually it is.
The point with this game though was that I had the first pawn already.
The sacrifice was only for two pawns - I could have simply retreated the
bishop and maintained the one pawn material advantage, but left black
with a reasonable defence around his king.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Dec 2005 15:57:10
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Sacrifice of minor piece for two pawns to gain a passed pawn and positional advantage?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Barry <[email protected] > wrote:
> The point with this game though was that I had the first pawn already.
> The sacrifice was only for two pawns - I could have simply retreated the
> bishop and maintained the one pawn material advantage, but left black
> with a reasonable defence around his king.
It's important to recognize, however, that there are lots of times when
this sacrifice is NOT sound.
The idea of "two pawns for a piece, plus no shelter for the enemy king"
is good - if you have other pieces in a position to follow up, and/or
the defend lacks defensive resources.
But by the same token, the more pieces there are on the board, the more
likely that they'll prove more valuable than the pawns. Therefore, the
sacrifice for a passed pawn and the sacrifice for an attack are likely
to come in very different circumstances.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2005 07:37:57
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Sacrifice of minor piece for two pawns to gain a passed pawn and positional advantage?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
> Here is the complete game, and the notes I posted on the ChessColony
> forum, complete and unabridged:
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Qf6 4. Nc3 Nge7 5. O-O a6 6. Ba4 b5 7. Nxb5!
> Such positional sacrifices of a minor piece for two pawns to gain a
> passed pawn and positional advantage crop up frequently in my games,
> and in most of the games I build up a tremendous advantage only to let
> it slip away tactically. I wonder whether others have analyzed this
> sacrifice, and whether it is sound.
The correct punctuation for 7.Nxb5 is not ! but ?. Maybe ?! in that
you get some compensation, but it's one of those moves you can't play
against an opponent of reasonable strenth. This move is absolutely
unsound, even given your opponent's rather dubious opening play. You
only almost get away with it because your opponent is - to be blunt -
not very good.
> 7...axb5 8. Bxb5 Ba6 9. Bxa6 Rxa6 10. Qe2!
> White takes the oppurtunity to develop a piece with gain of tempo,
> attacking the Rook on a6 and defending the vital e-pawn
I think you should be a little careful about patting yourself on the
back here. Yes, you "gain" a tempo. But to what end? If e2 the square
where you want your queen?
Furthermore, the rook on a6 is unprotected, and in a rather exposed
spot. I'm not sure you should be in such a hurry to move it to a safer
spot. As you'll learn as you get better, loose pieces make for tactical
targets. On a8 normal developing moves (like an eventual 0-0) will
result in the rook being protected.
This doesn't mean Qe2 is bad, although I think d3 or c3 is better. Don't
kick the rook just because you can - kick it because kicking it gets you
something.
> 10...Ra8 11. Rd1 h6 12. a4
> White's pawn starts ching.
Black's 11th move deserves a ? it serves no purpose.
> 12...Ng6 13. b3 Bd6 14. Bb2 O-O 15. Bc3
> This move serves to control a5 so the pawn can take another step
> forward. However, my King came under fire.
Black's 13th is also bad. I personally like Nf4, moving to an
aggressive post with a gain of tempo (a real one, because the N causes
you some trouble on f4.)
15.Bc3 seems optimistic, but give how anemically black has played so
far, it's hard to criticize it.
The problem is that it's way too early to be thinking about charing up
the queenside. That's a slow plan which shouldn't work if black attacks
on the center and on the kingside.
> 15...Nf4 16. Qe3 Qg6 17. Nh4 Qg4 18. g3?!
> Attacks the Knight on f4, defends the one on h4, and gets me into huge
> trouble when the h-file opens later. Fortunately, the Knight fork did
> not cost me any material here.
> 18...Ne2+ 19. Kf1 Nxc3 20. dxc3 g5 21. Nf5!
> I am very satisfied with this move, which creates a double blow. On one
> hand it thrathens a Knight fork with Nxh6+, on the other hand it
> threathens to win a Pawn with 22 Nxd6 cxd6 23 Rxd6. Cool, eh?
19.Nxc3 is a rather huge mistake. Better is N(c, preferably, but either
works)d4!, tacking up a dominant spot in the center. Instead, he makes
it easier for you to advance your pawns.
20. ... g5?? is a positionally brain-dead move. Simply Be7 holds black's
advantage. The B should have gone there originally. 20 ... g5?? 21.Nf5
you're slightly better.
> 21...Kh7 22. Nxd6 cxd6 23. Rxd6 Rad8 24. a5 Rda8
> Black is condemned to passivity. I believe White is 2ndady winning due
> to his material advantage and passed pawns.
Be careful. I think you're overpraising your own moves here because they
worked. But your opponent's play deserves serious censure. 21 ... Kh7
makes no sense. 21 ... Qh3+ 22. Kg1 Ra6 23.Nxd6 cd 24.Rxd6 Rfa8 and
white is better, but the game is better, but there's a lot of fight left
in the position.
23. ... Rad8? also deserves censure because the rook needs to be trying
to slow down the past pawns, as he figures out on his next move. But, of
course, there's no reason to worry about that pawn, yes (the queen
protects it).
Actually, that might be too harsh, because there is one valid reason to
put the a-rook on d8, and that's so the f-rook supports f5! So maybe the
censure should go on black's 24th move. (24 ... f5! doesn't change my
assessment of the position, but it makes your life much more
complicated.)
> 25. a6 Rfb8 26. b4 Ne7 27. Qd3
> White piles up on the d-pawn and defends d1 and the a6-f1 diagonal.
More censure for black's 25th. The b-pawn isn't anywhere close to being
a target. Black's 26th indicates that he has no idea what's going on
yet. The correct move is 26. ... Na7!, blockading one pawn and
restraining another.
> 27...Rbd8 28. b5 Qh3+ 29. Kg1?!
> I don't know whether I should have protected the h-pawn with this move,
> confining the King to this cage. Perhaps if I had sacrificed the
> h-pawn, I would not have been checkmated.
27 ... Rbd8 is the wrong way to protect his pawn. 27 ... Ra7! is much
stronger.
29. Kg1 was absolutely correct. The tactical possibilities involved in
sacrificing the pawn are more complex than I want to go in to now. One
line is: 29. Ke1 Qxh2 30.Qf3! (do you see why?) f5! 31.Ke2 (do you see
why?) f4 32.Qd3 f3 and life gets messy.
> 29...Nc8 30. Rd5 d6 31. c4 h5 32. c5!
30. Rf6 (keeping the N off b6) was better. 30. ... d6? is utterly
pointless. Black isn't looking for ways to mobilize his pieces to stop
your threat.
> This is another great move of mine. White attacks the pinned d-pawn and
> hence wins it. Black then tries to open the h-file, creating mating
> threats. I spotted them, but wasn't sure if Black could create
> sufficient threats. In the end, he could.
Well, 32. c5 is the best move on the board, but it's pretty simple, so
I'd be careful about calling it great. Especially because you don't
follow it up properly. (33. b6! and your passed b-pawn is an unstoppable
monster. The threat is simply b7.)
> 32...h4 33. cxd6 Nb6 34. Rxe5
> This is possibly the critical position. White is three pawns up and any
> strong player should have no trouble winning by steamrolling his passed
> pawns.
Well, sure, except a strong player would already have been steamrolling
his passed pawns. I think it's worth pointing out how your 33rd and 34th
moves, while they win you material, have nothing to do with pushing your
passed a- and b-pawns. You're getting hung up winning pawns when you
could win pieces. EG - 33. b6! Rb8 34. a7! Ra8 (to meet b7 with Rxa7!)
35.Qa6!
The point being that the plan you developed on move 7 is on the very of
paying off and you've lost sight of the target.
> 34...Kg6 35. Rc5 hxg3
> I knew that after 36 hxg3 Rh8, my King would be under heavy fire.
35. Rc5 is kind of a pointless move. Make threats! 35.Qd4 (threatening
to win the N) is much stronger.
> 36. fxg3 Rdh8 37. Qd2 f6 38. Rc6 Nd7 39. b6 Ne5!
> I was really stunned with this double blow. This attacks the Rook and
> threathens a Knight fork on f3. Fortunately, I calmed down and found a
> temporary solution.
It's important to see how black's sudden activity is not just a function
of him finding tactics - it's a function of the fact that you took your
foot off his throat. You gave him the opportunity to find tactics.
> 40. Rc3 Rac8 41. Re3??
> The critical mistake. Perhaps 41 Rb3 would have won. I now ran into a
> second Knight fork and lost on the spot.
> 41...Nc4 42. Qd4 Qxh2+ 43. Kf1 Qh1+ 44. Kf2 Rh2#
I know you don't want to talk so much about tactics, but 41.Re3 is not
the critical mistake, although after that move you're no longer better.
In fact, 42.Qd4 is the losing move, after which black forces mate.
But there was a lot of fight left in the position, due to your advance
pawns. 42.Qf2 Nxe3 43.Rc1 is an interesting attempt to complicate the
position. Now Rc6! preserves black's advantage, as does Ng4! But
something like 43 ... Rh6 (preparing Rh8) 44.b7! and black's got to win
the game all over again.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Dec 2005 10:46:53
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Sacrifice of minor piece for two pawns to gain a passed pawn
|
En/na Ron ha escrit:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
>>Here is the complete game, and the notes I posted on the ChessColony
>>forum, complete and unabridged:
>>
>>1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Qf6 4. Nc3 Nge7 5. O-O a6 6. Ba4 b5 7. Nxb5!
>>Such positional sacrifices of a minor piece for two pawns to gain a
>>passed pawn and positional advantage crop up frequently in my games,
>>and in most of the games I build up a tremendous advantage only to let
>>it slip away tactically. I wonder whether others have analyzed this
>>sacrifice, and whether it is sound.
>
>
> The correct punctuation for 7.Nxb5 is not ! but ?. Maybe ?! in that
> you get some compensation, but it's one of those moves you can't play
> against an opponent of reasonable strenth. This move is absolutely
> unsound, even given your opponent's rather dubious opening play. You
> only almost get away with it because your opponent is - to be blunt -
> not very good.
Hello, (... are you "hildanknight"?)
I agree with Ron evaluation being 7.Nxb5?
In first place I would congratulate you having own ideas and playing
them with entusiasm, that's a good way to improve!
The problem of being a piece down is we can be attacked with more pieces
than avaiable in defence.
In my opinion, those sacrifices (a piece for 2 pawns) can be
understandable in some cases, for example obtaining 2 connected passed
pawns (in your game you only obytained one passed pawn) and obtaining
good piece play.
If those pawns are obtained more advanced we have better prospects.
The same we can say if our opponent pieces are bad placed.
In Sicilian Najdorf that sometimes occur for 3 pawns (1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6
3.d4 cxd4 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2 Qc7 8.f4 Be7 9.0-0-0 b5
10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Bxb5 axb5 12.Nxb5
Here we can see that the missing "c" black pawn makes white "b" pawn a
passed pawn and a third pawn (d6) is obtained. Another detail is the
position of Qc7 which gives white some extra tempo.
AT
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Dec 2005 21:29:25
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Sacrifice of minor piece for two pawns to gain a passed pawn
|
En/na Antonio Torrecillas ha escrit:
> In my opinion, those sacrifices (a piece for 2 pawns) can be
> understandable in some cases, for example obtaining 2 connected passed
> pawns (in your game you only obytained one passed pawn) and obtaining
> good piece play.
> If those pawns are obtained more advanced we have better prospects.
> The same we can say if our opponent pieces are bad placed.
Two examples I played long ago were:
[Event "Teams DHonor"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1995.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Narciso Dublan, c"]
[Black "Torrecillas tinez, Antonio"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D37"]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. d4 d5 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Bf4 O-O 6. e3 c5 7. dxc5 Nc6
8. a3 Bxc5 9. Qc2 Re8 10. Rd1 e5 11. Bg5 d4 12. Nd5 Qa5+ {an incorrect
sacrifice} 13. b4 Qxa3 14.bxc5 Nxd5 15. cxd5 Nb4 16. Qb1 {Here we have a
critical moment, I think white was better but this move -a clear
mistake- give black the dreamed position} Nxd5 17. e4 Nc3 18. Qc1 Qxc5
{Black is better, two connected passed pawns are going to advance and
white is not able to create attack enough} 19. Bd3 Be6 20. O-O b5 21.Bd2
b4 22. Ng5 Bc4 23. Bxc4 Qxc4 24.Kh1 f6 25. Nh3 a5 26. Rde1 a4 27. f4 b3
28. fxe5 Rxe5 29. Bf4 Rb5 30.e5 b2 31. Qc2 d3 32. Qf2 b1=Q 33. Rxb1 Rxb1
34.Rxb1 Nxb1 35. exf6 d2 36. Bxd2 Nxd2 37. Qxd2 a3 38. Qg5 Qf7 39. fxg7
a2 0-1
[Event "Op Badalona"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1986.??.??"]
[Round "11"]
[White "Torrecillas tinez, Antonio"]
[Black "Saenz"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D45"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Nc3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 a6 7. e4 dxe4
8. Nxe4 Nxe4 9. Qxe4 Nf6 10. Qc2 Bb4+ 11. Bd2 Qa5 12. Bd3 Bxd2+ 13. Qxd2
Qxd2+ 14. Kxd2 O-O 15. Ne5 Rd8 16. Ke3 Nd7 17. Be4 f6 18. Nd3 e5 19.dxe5
Nxe5 20. Nxe5 fxe5 21. Rhd1 Be6 22. b3 Kf7 23. c5 g6 24. b4 Ke7 25. a3
a5 26. Rxd8 Kxd8 27. b5 Kc7 28. b6+ Kd7 29. Rd1+ Ke7 30. Rd6 a4 {and now
the sacrifice} 31.Bxc6 bxc6 32. Rxc6 Kd7 {bad, black pieces are poorly
placed} 33. Rc7+ Kd8 34. Ke4 Rb8 35. Kxe5 1-0
I hope someone find anything interesting here
AT
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Dec 2005 19:28:01
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Sacrifice of minor piece for two pawns to gain a passed pawn and positional advantage?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote:
> In first place I would congratulate you having own ideas and playing
> them with entusiasm, that's a good way to improve!
I want to second this. My notes were fairly negative, but your attitude
- I think this is good and I'm going to try to prove it! - is wonderful,
and, in the long run, should lead to rapid improvement.
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2005 07:22:34
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Sacrifice of minor piece for two pawns to gain a passed pawn and positional advantage?
|
This is a very common theme in many openings, including the Steinitz French,
and the Pelikan Sicilian, to name a few.
The sacrifice is usually unsound unless you can get a permanent positional
advantage (such as a knight outposted on d6 and supporting an invasion
rather than just threatening the wind). It also helps if you can force the
other side not to castle in the process.
"J.L.W.S. The Special One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In my recent games, I have been making positional sacrifices of a minor
> piece (usually a Knight) for two wing pawns, which lands me a passed
> pawn on the wing, and another positional advantage, such as use of a
> hole or piece activity. This sacrifice seems unique and I don't know
> any other player who uses such positional sacrifices on a regular
> basis. I don't have that many finished games in which I used this
> sacrifice, but it has gotten me into strategically won positions on
> several occasions (and I subsequently lose due to tactics - refer to my
> post "Chess tactical concepts?") and on other occasions my position
> collapsed (once again, due to tactics). I would like to hear other's
> opinions on this idea, particularly how interesting and sound it is.
>
> One memorable game in which I employed such a positional sacrifice was
> my loss as White to ChessColony user Manhattan a month ago. I built up
> an overwhelming position but fell into a knight fork and lost. However,
> the falling into a Knight fork is not the relevant point here. To talk
> about my tactical shortcomings, please post in the "Chess Tactical
> Concepts?" thread. This thread is about the positional sacrifice of a
> piece for two pawns to gain a passed pawn and another positional
> advantage.
>
> Here is the complete game, and the notes I posted on the ChessColony
> forum, complete and unabridged:
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Qf6 4. Nc3 Nge7 5. O-O a6 6. Ba4 b5 7. Nxb5!
> Such positional sacrifices of a minor piece for two pawns to gain a
> passed pawn and positional advantage crop up frequently in my games,
> and in most of the games I build up a tremendous advantage only to let
> it slip away tactically. I wonder whether others have analyzed this
> sacrifice, and whether it is sound.
> 7...axb5 8. Bxb5 Ba6 9. Bxa6 Rxa6 10. Qe2!
> White takes the oppurtunity to develop a piece with gain of tempo,
> attacking the Rook on a6 and defending the vital e-pawn
> 10...Ra8 11. Rd1 h6 12. a4
> White's pawn starts ching.
> 12...Ng6 13. b3 Bd6 14. Bb2 O-O 15. Bc3
> This move serves to control a5 so the pawn can take another step
> forward. However, my King came under fire.
> 15...Nf4 16. Qe3 Qg6 17. Nh4 Qg4 18. g3?!
> Attacks the Knight on f4, defends the one on h4, and gets me into huge
> trouble when the h-file opens later. Fortunately, the Knight fork did
> not cost me any material here.
> 18...Ne2+ 19. Kf1 Nxc3 20. dxc3 g5 21. Nf5!
> I am very satisfied with this move, which creates a double blow. On one
> hand it thrathens a Knight fork with Nxh6+, on the other hand it
> threathens to win a Pawn with 22 Nxd6 cxd6 23 Rxd6. Cool, eh?
> 21...Kh7 22. Nxd6 cxd6 23. Rxd6 Rad8 24. a5 Rda8
> Black is condemned to passivity. I believe White is already winning due
> to his material advantage and passed pawns.
> 25. a6 Rfb8 26. b4 Ne7 27. Qd3
> White piles up on the d-pawn and defends d1 and the a6-f1 diagonal.
> 27...Rbd8 28. b5 Qh3+ 29. Kg1?!
> I don't know whether I should have protected the h-pawn with this move,
> confining the King to this cage. Perhaps if I had sacrificed the
> h-pawn, I would not have been checkmated.
> 29...Nc8 30. Rd5 d6 31. c4 h5 32. c5!
> This is another great move of mine. White attacks the pinned d-pawn and
> hence wins it. Black then tries to open the h-file, creating mating
> threats. I spotted them, but wasn't sure if Black could create
> sufficient threats. In the end, he could.
> 32...h4 33. cxd6 Nb6 34. Rxe5
> This is possibly the critical position. White is three pawns up and any
> strong player should have no trouble winning by steamrolling his passed
> pawns.
> 34...Kg6 35. Rc5 hxg3
> I knew that after 36 hxg3 Rh8, my King would be under heavy fire.
> 36. fxg3 Rdh8 37. Qd2 f6 38. Rc6 Nd7 39. b6 Ne5!
> I was really stunned with this double blow. This attacks the Rook and
> threathens a Knight fork on f3. Fortunately, I calmed down and found a
> temporary solution.
> 40. Rc3 Rac8 41. Re3??
> The critical mistake. Perhaps 41 Rb3 would have won. I now ran into a
> second Knight fork and lost on the spot.
> 41...Nc4 42. Qd4 Qxh2+ 43. Kf1 Qh1+ 44. Kf2 Rh2#
>
|
|
