well, I am confused too,
the sacrifise u made would never be attempted by me,
but my computer often does it, if it is winning 2 pawns for a bishop or a knight...
questionable sacrifice
Sort:
Chessmaster set to lower settings will often make iffy sacrifices I guess as a way of weakening itself. Sometimes it will also leave things hanging. Set to full strength, computers shouldnt make dodgy sacrifices.
In the position given, I think you have to retreat the bishop. As well as losing a piece for a couple of kingside pawns, you cant keep the pin up on the knight. The position after the sacrifice just looks completely good for black to me.
I think that sac would generate good winning chances OTB against most amateurs. Black has to defend very accurately to safely defuse the pin or get counter-chances. I would be more critical of playing it in correspondence chess or against a class A player or above. I probably wouldn't play the sac myself unless it was a must-win situation.
I would prefer 1...Rg8 as the best defense, preparing to meet Qf3 with either ...Rg6 or ...Nd4, depending on the exact variation.
It's not very sound,no.Then again,things seem to always get messy,easy for either side to slip up so it might be playable.
Picking up on Lisa's analyses 1...,Be6 2.Nd5,Bxd5 3.exd5,Rg8 (not 3...,Nd4 in light of 4.c3!,Nf5? 5.Qf3,Nh4 6.Qxf6,Nxg2+ 7.Kf1,Qxf6 8.Bxf6,Rh6 9.Bg5,Rg6 10.h4 with a messy position but white has his piece back and the h-pawn looks dangerous.) 4.h4,Na5 5.Bb5+,c6 6.dxc6,bxc6 7.Ba4,Qb6 8.0-0(8.Bxf6?,Rg2! and white's king is in great danger),Nd7 and I think black may be a little better.Still messy though.
Well,that's the best I can offer :)
Jul 16, 2008
0
#6
thanks for all the input guys. sounds like it was just a bad idea and I lucked out. And again I don't think this was the exact position, I just threw some pieces on the board. all I focusing on was trading the night for 2 pawns.
lisav, my initials are jac so there is no "11". I have used this name for years and I think you are only the second person to figure it out.
Jul 16, 2008
0
#7
well my first diagram wasn't very good it wasn't the actual game I played, but towards the end of the game the position was as follows.
this is what I was trying to accomplish when I saced my night. Now I have 2 passed pawns and eventually won the game, because my oponent made a mistake and I won his bishop for free. but even if that had not happened and he had an extra bishop on the board somewhere, how could this game have played out? would it still be winning for black?
haha, ok, the colours have changed. It would depend what colour the bishop was and which side of the board it was on. That said, I think even with a bad bishop, i'd take my chances with the extra piece.
10_1_3_1_19_19> would it still be winning for black?
No, in general, you're going to lose if you give up a piece for two pawns. When you give up material you need to get something back in return or else you're just losing. Put a bishop on g2 in your second position and White wins by a landslide.
Jul 16, 2008
0
#10
ok, it seems like everyone is in agreement that i'm an idiot and it was a stupid move. I promise i'll never do it again.
Always look for the exceptions though. If a move doesnt work, you can rule it out, but only after you've looked. :)
For example, in this position from IM-level play, the sac's sound.
And this very famous example which i hope i've got right
Jul 17, 2008
0
#15
There are situations where the knight for 2 pawns and keeping the pin can be good, particularly if they've castled and their king is then wide open. Ususally though, the 2 pawns' value can only approach that of the knight in certain endgames
Nice example sstteevveenn, but it should be mentionened that Morphy played these kind of sacrifices mostly against 'amateurs' (and that Morphy was one of the most brilliant chess players ever). I think that on a <2000 rating, sacrificing a piece for two pawns should only be done when you get an immidiate benefit (like completly messing up his pawn structure, preventing promotion, setting up a mate).
I played a game recently where I traded my knight for 2 pawns and was wondering what everyone else thought of the move.
I don't remember the exact position, in fact I'm sure this wasn't it but I traded the knight for 2 pawns and eventually our f-pawns came off the board so now I had 2 connected passed pawns which I thought would be more valuable than his extra peice. I ended up winning the game because my oponent made a mistake and I won a peice for free, so it was an easy win from there. So my question is, was sacrificing the night a good/bad idea? Should I have retreated the bishop instead? Or maybe I just got lucky against a weaker opponent.