| |
Main
Date: 17 Feb 2007 05:51:18
From: Ron
Subject: A fun sacrifice
|
Here's a game I played recently. I believe the N sacrifice is, at worst,
unclear. Black, however, resigned much earlier than I would have.
[White "Me"]
[Black "Black"]
[Result "1-0"]
[TimeControl "1500+25"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5. Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7. Nd5
Qf7 8.Nce3 c6 9. Nc3 d5 10. Be2 Nf6 11. O-O Bd6 12. f3 Qc7 13. fxe4 $5
Bxh2+ 14. Kh1 Nxe4 15. Nxe4 dxe4 16. Bc4 Bg3 $6 (16. ... Bf4 {appears
better} ) 17. Bf7+ (17.Qh5+ g6 18. Qg5 {is stronger (crafty) with many
threats}) Kd8 18. Nd5 $1 cxd5 19. Bg5+ Kd7 20. Bxd5 Qd6 {Black resigns.
I'd have made me prove it.} (20. ... Qd6 {Black resigns} 21. Rf7+ Ke8
22. Rxg7 $1 h5 $1 23. Qf1 Qxd5 (23. ... Rf8 24. Bf7+ Kd7 25. Qc4 Nc6 26.
Bxh5+ Ne7 27. Rxe7+ $18) 24. Re7+ Kd8 25. Re5+ $18) (20. ... Kd6 21. c4
{with compensation, but the position is still unclear} h6 22. Qh5 $1
hxg5 23. Qxh8 {and the attack still rages}) 1-0
This is one of those games where I don't know if I should be proud of my
play or not. To be honest, when I played 18. Nd5! I missed the king's
eventual escape route via c6, so I was already out of my pre-sac
analysis on 20.Bxd5.
I had assumed only 20. ... Kd6, at that point, and, in truth, against
that defense I'm now pretty convinced that white wins (although there's
an Rf6+ sac in there that I can't claim I would have found to put it
beyond doubt).
I know defense is no fun, but I was really surprised at my opponents
resignation. Make me prove it. I guess when you make a move like 18.
Nd5! people give you credit for being a lot stronger than you actually
are. :)
-Ron
|
|
| |
On Feb 19, 5:06 pm, Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> I believe 18.Nd5 is winning in all variations. Even against 20. ... Kd6
> 21. c4 I haven't found a defense for black. Although I'm certainly open
> to re-evaluating that if somebody wants to point out a defense that I've
> missed.
Yes, you are right. A superficial look does not do it justice. Even h6
fails.
Black is fucked.
|
| |
On Feb 17, 12:51 am, Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> Here's a game I played recently. I believe the N sacrifice is, at worst,
> unclear. Black, however, resigned much earlier than I would have.
>
> [White "Me"]
> [Black "Black"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [TimeControl "1500+25"]
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5. Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7. Nd5
> Qf7 8.Nce3 c6 9. Nc3 d5 10. Be2 Nf6 11. O-O Bd6 12. f3 Qc7 13. fxe4 $5
> Bxh2+ 14. Kh1 Nxe4 15. Nxe4 dxe4 16. Bc4 Bg3 $6 (16. ... Bf4 {appears
> better} ) 17. Bf7+ (17.Qh5+ g6 18. Qg5 {is stronger (crafty) with many
> threats}) Kd8 18. Nd5 $1 cxd5 19. Bg5+ Kd7 20. Bxd5 Qd6 {Black resigns.
> I'd have made me prove it.} (20. ... Qd6 {Black resigns} 21. Rf7+ Ke8
> 22. Rxg7 $1 h5 $1 23. Qf1 Qxd5 (23. ... Rf8 24. Bf7+ Kd7 25. Qc4 Nc6 26.
> Bxh5+ Ne7 27. Rxe7+ $18) 24. Re7+ Kd8 25. Re5+ $18) (20. ... Kd6 21. c4
> {with compensation, but the position is still unclear} h6 22. Qh5 $1
> hxg5 23. Qxh8 {and the attack still rages}) 1-0
>
> This is one of those games where I don't know if I should be proud of my
> play or not. To be honest, when I played 18. Nd5! I missed the king's
> eventual escape route via c6, so I was already out of my pre-sac
> analysis on 20.Bxd5.
>
> I had assumed only 20. ... Kd6, at that point, and, in truth, against
> that defense I'm now pretty convinced that white wins (although there's
> an Rf6+ sac in there that I can't claim I would have found to put it
> beyond doubt).
>
> I know defense is no fun, but I was really surprised at my opponents
> resignation. Make me prove it. I guess when you make a move like 18.
> Nd5! people give you credit for being a lot stronger than you actually
> are. :)
>
> -Ron
18. Nd5(?!) is not best and does not deserve a '!'. 18.Qh5 is much
stronger. In the game, Qd6 is the losing move. Kd6 is better, as you
stated.
After 18. Qh5 Bd7 19. Qg5+ Kc8 20. Qxg7 Rd8 21. Nc4 is crushing.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Feb 2007 22:06:56
From: Ron
Subject: Re: A fun sacrifice
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> 18. Nd5(?!) is not best and does not deserve a '!'. 18.Qh5 is much
> stronger. In the game, Qd6 is the losing move. Kd6 is better, as you
> stated.
I believe 18.Nd5 is winning in all variations. Even against 20. ... Kd6
21. c4 I haven't found a defense for black. Although I'm certainly open
to re-evaluating that if somebody wants to point out a defense that I've
missed.
> After 18. Qh5 Bd7 19. Qg5+ Kc8 20. Qxg7 Rd8 21. Nc4 is crushing.
I believe 18.Qh5 also wins, although I don't see it as "much stronger."
Since the key threat is a check on g5, 18. ... Bd7 seems like a rather
foolish move. I see one plausible defense for black, which doesn't
appear to work.
18. ... h6 19.Qg6 Rf8 20.Qxg7 Bd6 21.Nc4 Be7 22.Bxh6 threatening Bg5
(winning the rook). This wins for white.
|
| |
Date: 17 Feb 2007 20:33:50
From: chasmad
Subject: Re: A fun sacrifice
|
On Feb 17, 10:38 pm, Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> "chasmad" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5. Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7. Nd5
> > > Qf7 8.Nce3 c6 9. Nc3 d5 10. Be2 Nf6 11. O-O Bd6 12. f3 Qc7
>
> > ?? Awful! After 12. ... exf3 Black is just fine (13. Rxf3 Be6 14.Nf5
> > Bc7 15. Bg5 Nbd7 16. Qf1 O-O and 0-1 in 31, Woschkat-Schmidt, corr.
> > 1987). Your 8. Nce3 is considered inferior to 8. Nde3 (since in that
> > case any ... d5 by Black can be met by Ne5).
>
> Interesting. In that line, 15.Bg5 looks like a major mistake. How strong
> were those players? Instead, 15.Qe1 (intending, on 0-0, Qh4 as part of a
> kingside attack) looks strong for white.
>
> I see your point about 8.Nde3, although it feels more complicated than
> that to me - if black doesn't play d5 (which, obviously, he won't with a
> N on c4) the N is just sort of sitting there, and also interfering with
> the harmonious development of the bishop.
>
Black would obviously prefer to have an active position with his pawn
on d5 and his B on d6, as opposed to being stuck with a pawn on d6 and
his B on e7. In the so-called "Nunn's refutation" line (from
Leonhardt's variation with 4. Nc4 dxe4 5. Nc3 Qf7! 6. Ne3 c6!), Black
even gambits his e-pawn in order to achieve this structure.
Games like yours tend to show that in openings like the Latvian, White
can afford to fart around a bit and still be okay, but for Black any
inaccuracy tends to be immediately fatal.
Charles
> Thanks for the comments.>
> -Ron
|
| |
Date: 17 Feb 2007 18:49:10
From: chasmad
Subject: Re: A fun sacrifice
|
On Feb 17, 12:51 am, Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> Here's a game I played recently. I believe the N sacrifice is, at worst,
> unclear. Black, however, resigned much earlier than I would have.
>
> [White "Me"]
> [Black "Black"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [TimeControl "1500+25"]
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5. Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7. Nd5
> Qf7 8.Nce3 c6 9. Nc3 d5 10. Be2 Nf6 11. O-O Bd6 12. f3 Qc7
?? Awful! After 12. ... exf3 Black is just fine (13. Rxf3 Be6 14.Nf5
Bc7 15. Bg5 Nbd7 16. Qf1 O-O and 0-1 in 31, Woschkat-Schmidt, corr.
1987). Your 8. Nce3 is considered inferior to 8. Nde3 (since in that
case any ... d5 by Black can be met by Ne5).
Charles
> 13. fxe4 $5 Bxh2+ 14. Kh1 Nxe4 15. Nxe4 dxe4 16. Bc4 Bg3 $6 (16. ... Bf4
> {appears better} ) 17. Bf7+ (17.Qh5+ g6 18. Qg5 {is stronger (crafty) with many
> threats}) Kd8 18. Nd5 $1 cxd5 19. Bg5+ Kd7 20. Bxd5 Qd6 {Black resigns.
> I'd have made me prove it.} (20. ... Qd6 {Black resigns} 21. Rf7+ Ke8
> 22. Rxg7 $1 h5 $1 23. Qf1 Qxd5 (23. ... Rf8 24. Bf7+ Kd7 25. Qc4 Nc6 26.
> Bxh5+ Ne7 27. Rxe7+ $18) 24. Re7+ Kd8 25. Re5+ $18) (20. ... Kd6 21. c4
> {with compensation, but the position is still unclear} h6 22. Qh5 $1
> hxg5 23. Qxh8 {and the attack still rages}) 1-0
>
> This is one of those games where I don't know if I should be proud of my
> play or not. To be honest, when I played 18. Nd5! I missed the king's
> eventual escape route via c6, so I was already out of my pre-sac
> analysis on 20.Bxd5.
>
> I had assumed only 20. ... Kd6, at that point, and, in truth, against
> that defense I'm now pretty convinced that white wins (although there's
> an Rf6+ sac in there that I can't claim I would have found to put it
> beyond doubt).
>
> I know defense is no fun, but I was really surprised at my opponents
> resignation. Make me prove it. I guess when you make a move like 18.
> Nd5! people give you credit for being a lot stronger than you actually
> are. :)
>
> -Ron
|
| | |
Date: 18 Feb 2007 03:38:41
From: Ron
Subject: Re: A fun sacrifice
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"chasmad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5. Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7. Nd5
> > Qf7 8.Nce3 c6 9. Nc3 d5 10. Be2 Nf6 11. O-O Bd6 12. f3 Qc7
>
> ?? Awful! After 12. ... exf3 Black is just fine (13. Rxf3 Be6 14.Nf5
> Bc7 15. Bg5 Nbd7 16. Qf1 O-O and 0-1 in 31, Woschkat-Schmidt, corr.
> 1987). Your 8. Nce3 is considered inferior to 8. Nde3 (since in that
> case any ... d5 by Black can be met by Ne5).
Interesting. In that line, 15.Bg5 looks like a major mistake. How strong
were those players? Instead, 15.Qe1 (intending, on 0-0, Qh4 as part of a
kingside attack) looks strong for white.
I see your point about 8.Nde3, although it feels more complicated than
that to me - if black doesn't play d5 (which, obviously, he won't with a
N on c4) the N is just sort of sitting there, and also interfering with
the harmonious development of the bishop.
Thanks for the comments.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 17 Feb 2007 18:26:15
From: SBD
Subject: Re: A fun sacrifice
|
The position seems like it was pretty bad, whether you sacrificed the
knight or not. You of course know the psychological value of such a
sacrifice, and I would have been pretty disgusted with myself being in
that position, so his resignation may have come precisely because he
*didn't* want to make you prove it. Tenacious defense takes a strong
psyche, and maybe he just didn't have that in him...
I find it more interesting that you were able to withstand the
Latvian, which can give me fits at times - perhaps your tenacity
outtrumped his tenacity? :)
Nice game, by the way.
|
|
