The Power of Paired Knights!

Hello Knight lovers! If this decribes you to some capacity, then you will love this post!

I have offered up here 3 recent live games of mine, where the (winning) highlight of each game is the use of paired knights to optimize on closed game situations:

- The first of the 3 was a long 15 min 0sec int. game, which invovles the king's gambit, a queen sac with no obvious compensation in sight, and then a beautiful mating net and combo ending in a smothered mate!

-The other 2 were 3 min 0sec int. blitz games, where in one, both kngihts are used to trap the oponents queen on my end of the board, and the other where both knights are a rook orchestrate a mating net ending in a double check via discovered attack! Exciting stuff!

Here is the first game - I'll put the other two up later:

19. Nxh6+ gxh6 20. Nf6+ Kg7 21. Nxg4 and White has a small but clear advantage. After move 19 in the game, White is really bad off. After 22. Nh5, Black is 8 points ahead according to Rybka. After 30. Nhg3, Black is 10 points ahead. Black only explodes on 30... bxc4 (Black is still about 6 points ahead after this) and 31... Kg7?????? which throws away a nice lead to a mate in 2. 31... Kg8 holds the lead.

So basically the "forced sequence" at move 31 isn't forced. Black ducks out of a forced mate with Kg8 and can keep a 6 point lead (that only seems to gain in size as the computer gave more moves for each side).

Very nice looking mate, but watch out for counter-sacrifices. 30...Qxg3+! 31. Nxg3 bxc4, and black ends up with an extra rook, and white's attack vanishes.

I'm sure there are even better lines for black, but even this crude counter-sacrifice guarantees an easy win for black. Some people like to sacrifice all their pieces for an attack, but forget that their opponent can also sacrifice. Suddenly they get blown away by a counter-sac that they never even considered.

Yes, I see and know this very well. But first of all, you are both missing the WHOLE DAMNED point! This post is about showcasing the use of knights, and specifically Paired knights.

Second off, Stevemartuns, you are wrong about g8. I originally put many more comments in the game, more explanations, but then it all got erased so I settled with what you see here. In those would-be comments, I mentioned that had black chosen the other square to retreat from the attacking knight, then he can still be checked by my OTHER knight. Case in point of the game!!! The power of paired knights is the point, and was illustrated by this scenario. Can't you see that both my knights cover 3 of the 4 squares available to the black king?? my rook attacked the fourth, and that's that! You need to do your homework son!...

In anycase, for those of you who actually understand what I'm trying to illustrate, and can appreciate how the knights worked together in the last FORCED mating sequence, you will love these next two games I'm about to post....

very ncie game,

ALOT of sacrifises.. i like it,

i can see that your going to be very good one day!

 im still scared to sacrifise even a pawn to this day and you sacrifised so much and something good came out of it,

good job!

Dude, I said it was a nice mate. Just because we commented on another part of the game, doesn't mean we missed the key feature. You went on and on about the queen sacrifice in your own annotations, yet you don't expect anyone else to comment about that?

Actually he's right. Instead of explaining this, let's just play out the moves: Black plays 31...Kg8 -- now your turn (trust me, there is no forced mate. White is just down by a queen)

32. Nf6!?! Kg5 33. Nf5 and converts e5 pawn to white's side !!!#

I can't believe you didn't see it.

I should do my homework? I'm trying to help your game analysis, not insult you, and I certainly did do my homework - I ran it through an engine. After 31... Kg8 White doesn't have a forced mate. And after the check that you suggest - Nf6, there follows:

 Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

When I first got introduce to the whole concept of tempo, way back in the day, the whole game changed drastically for me. It was soon evident that tempo/position and sacrificing often go hand in hand...

Through much trial and error (with mostly errors, lol) I slowly started to find useful sacrifices that could be followed up on with new or greater, or a greater number of, threats.

Basically it was discovering a new dimension of chess, and the way I see it, it's a 4 dimensional game:

-2 Dimensions which dicatate the momvement of pawns and 4 of the 5 pieces,

-the 'thrid' dimension which can only be exploited by the knights (when there are no knights on board, the game reverts to 2D + fourth dimension)

-and TIME being the fourth, and vital one; the idea of tempo trumping material which may lead to winning positions.

 Actually, I felt bad about grouping you in win Steve Martuns after I posted my initial response (plus, in case you couldn't tell I wasn't in a very good mood at the time), that comment was more directed at him.

I appreciate both your compliment and your point about counter-sacs. In fact, though I did not discuss it, I had noticed that my oponent could have done that in a few occaisions. I guess he just didn't feel good about losing his queen. An irrational response to a rational situation, his loss, quite litterally.

But I don't like depending on my oponents making mistakes to win, I'd rather outwit them if I can, and force a win through manipulative skill, not via blunder.

Perhaps the other two games will be a bit more accurate in play, though I know for a fact that not every move made was the most accurate! Then again, in timed games, especially under 30 mins, like these all were, hardly anyone does! In anycase, I do accept and expect commenting on other parts of the game, for sure. However, in 'buddy's ' case, unlike yours, that's all he did, try to flush out flaws, and ignore the good stuff - basically throwing out the baby with the water... That's what I found annoying, so pardon me to you for directing some of that frustration your way..

Well I'm sorry for trying to help you improve your play and analysis, then. If you're going to ignore constructive criticism and only pay attention to compliments, then I guess I don't belong here.

Beautiful knight work.

tarius, steve is just pointing out that the game itself was not so impressive and the sacs were not advantageous. You did, however, snatch victory from the jaws of defeat with a last-ditch mating trap. Most of the time it will fail, but you got lucky this time, so it was worth playing. That's all that happened this game.

Hey guys, chill out!

I know the limitations of this game! I just thought it was a cool comeback, and I went with a gut feeling that I could snatch the win away, even with saccing material. I dissagree that the sacs were not advantageous - some were less, some were more - for example, the last bishop sac was a game winner, and the earlier darksquared bishop sac ripped open the protective pawn structure around the oponent's king. The Queen sac was not needed, because by capturing the checking bishop with my knight, I still protected my queen, would have been up a piece at least, and have been far ahead in development and general position and attacking chances.

There is NO doubt - I had a guaranteed winning game win the bishop pinning on the g file. NO doubt. Did I bungle it a bit? Oh YES! NO doubt about that either!! Don't get me wrong... But I did manage to save it quite nicely!

The game itself was not the highlight, as I keep reminding everyone. (Sigh)

That is also why I chose to show this one first, and keept the others for later, since I think that they were overall better played games.

It's human nature to showcase a game and wait for the compliments. But to be honest, steevmartuns' input was completely constructive. Just because he didn't decorate his comments with compliments doesn't mean his intentions were negative. Basically he pointed out that your paired-knights-mate wasn't forced at all--that is hugely helpful because it's something critical that you missed. It's perhaps the single most important input anyone can give. Think of it this way: that move alone (Kg8) makes the difference between being mated and winning by a queen! How often do you encounter moves that are this critical? You should be happy that someone pointed out such a critical move, because you'll almost never encounter something like that again. This is not something to be missed, it's so rare!

Someone in another thread said something like "I hate it when patzers post their so-called 'immortal games' on here!" -- now that's something you might get offended by.

As for you, Steevmartuns, like I wanted to say, you seemed overly focussed on mere criticism as well, instead of giving any consideration to the ideas demonstrated by the knightwork. Wether the leading up circumstances were accurately played or not, does not change the mating pattern used to give the final blow.

Also, I believe that there was  miscommunication, my friend. On move 31, I wasn't saying that the mate was forced, however, looking back on the way I worded it, I can see why that was the understanding. (As I mentioned, originally I took my time making more careful annotations before, but when it got erased I did a quickie job). What I meant to say, was that after my oponent's chosen response, then it is forced. I do see that had the other king reacted differently, then one of my pieces would have been in jeopardy and/or the king may have escaped.... Still, I find this pattern useful to bear in mind, and I hope that these other two games will serve as better examples.

tarius, I'm not really trying to argue, but you are acting like the major themes of your game were solid and steve is just bickering over details. The fact is, the moves you were trying to show off put you ten points behind. It will almost always be completely impossible to come back from such a deficit. The fact that you dropped a queen and came back is impressive, but not advisable.

I do think it is important to get that out of steve's analysis, because if you try similar sacs in the future, you will almost always lose.

 It doesn't really matter if you disagree or not, Eebster was right. You were giving up pieces the ENTIRE game for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! The last bishop sac wasn't a game winner because the "forced mating combination" WASN'T FORCED!

You never had anything close to a winning game, especially not a guaranteed winning game.

After your opponent's 30th move (where you claim that no doubt you had a guaranteed won game) Rybka, running on full power for 15 minutes, gives over a 10 pawn advantage TO YOUR OPPONENT! That is not a winning game for you.

Well Ryan doesn't seem to be a happy camper! I guess tonydal agrees that at least some point there was a forced mate in 2... Hmm....

I guess that's the part that inspired me to include it in this post...

For those who are interested, here are my other two games I wanted to post which have nice illustrations of how useful 2 knights can be in closed quarters:

Enjoy!

As promised, the last of the three with a nice double knight (with rook assist) mate: