haha i gotta say, a lot of chess players come off as extremely pretentious and annoying in the comment sections of that site. reminds me of philosophy students at Michigan.
anyway, i like this comment:
"wow
this game is awesome, even if the combination was obvious."
i wonder what "obvious" combination he's referring to.
haha i gotta say, a lot of chess players come off as extremely pretentious and annoying in the comment sections of that site. reminds me of philosophy students at Michigan.
anyway, i like this comment:
"wow
this game is awesome, even if the combination was obvious."
i wonder what "obvious" combination he's referring to.
Here's my favorite comment:
"I dont understand all the exlamation marks for the queen sacrifice... I have to say personally I would have found this in a 5min blitz game.. its only 8 moves to calculate... "
Ok it was just a simul. And ok, it's not exactly rocket science to see it's not a real sacrifice (since 31.Qxe7 Bxd1+ 32.Kc1 Rb1#). But the opponent still makes it the most memorable one I've ever done.
I haven't played chess in quite a while, but I did play alot when I was a kid. I was 11 years old when I played this game (Opponent was rated ~1800 CFC rating) and picked up a fairly valuable antique clock as a 'brilliancy prize' at the 1999 Canadian Open.
Edit: I just noticed that the poster above me is a fellow Canadian player that I've actually met in person before (I was just a kid but I played in the 2000 Canadian Open that you ran / organized - great job by the way!).
Last edited by DarkMemoria; 12-31-2011 at 01:58 PM.
Well fk me if that's easy I mean it's not super hard when you know what you are looking for, but in the game it would not be such an easy find for me, unless of course I would have been toying with that idea for a while before. Great job at finding it!
As far as I can see, the thread is unofficially regarded as a discussion of potential queen sacs in general, though it was initially stated that it should contain only posters' own sacs. I've never sacked more than a minor piece myself, but I'll go ahead and include my yesterday's NM scalp here on the grounds of the opponent's (kind of) queen sac emerging in a side line that wasn't played but had to be foreseen by me. If it's not appropriate here, just move it to the general BBV thread.
In a thematic Slav tournament (still going on, btw), my Black opponent was the 2007 US senior champion NM Joel F. Johnson, a sharp attacking player also known for writing books.
There were fireworks already in the opening. I was stunned to see such a seasoned master (albeit a Modern Defence specialist) make the standard mistake of bringing the LSB out (not fianchettoing it) early in the Slav (which makes the b7 pawn vulnerable and gives White several tempos, unlike in the Advance Caro-Kann, where it's safe as White's c-pawn doesn't move early and the queen can't go to b3).
In the hindsight, I prefer 9. Nc6! Qc8 10. Qxc8 Rxc8 11. Nxa7, leading to an easy position with 2 extra pawns for White and no Black counterplay. That's how I played in a later game against another opponent in the same tourney group who apparently decided to copy the master's play
Another possibility, found afterwards by Houdini 1.5a, is 9. e4!? dxe4 10. Nc6 Qc8 11. Ba6! - White will be the exchange up. (Actually, allowing a knight fork - 9... Rb8 10. Qa6 Nxe4 11. Nc6 Qc8 12. Nxb8 Qxb8 - is deemed a bit better for Black.)
In the game vs the NM, I went for a gamble, as recommended when playing against stronger opponents - 9. Nb5!? - but hadn't foreseen the counterplay - 9... Bb4+! 10. Kd1!? O-O!? (after 10... Rb8 11. Nc7+ Kf8 12. Qxa7 Nxe5 13. dxe5 Ne4! 14. Na6 Ra8 15. Qd4 Be7 16. f3 Rxa6 17. fxe4 Bxe4, the engine evaluates the position as about -0.4 - Black is a pawn down but has tremendous initiative).
Now try to find the best 11th move for White that I played. See the solution in the next spoiler.
Continuation of the previous spoiler:
Spoiler:
11. Nc6! did win a piece, but I didn't realise what world of pain I'd be in - my LSB would get stuck on f1 for the entire game, which would last for 35 more moves!
11... Rb8? is a counting mistake - 12. Nxd8 Rxb7 13. Nxb7 leaves White with an extra rook.
Now find a sideline queen sac response by Black and another amazing tactic that he actually played and that's best for Black! See them in the next spoiler.
Continuation of the previous spoiler:
Spoiler:
The queen sac I was hoping for is 11... Rc8!? Now 12. Nxd8?? loses to Bc2#, but 12. Nxb4! defends c2 and leaves White with an extra piece and pawn and facing less counterplay despite fewer minor pieces being exchanged.
The tactic NM Joel Johnson found is 11... Ng4! 12. Be3 Qh4! 13. Nxb4 Nc5!! Now White gets left with just an extra piece and doubled e-pawns hindering the kingside development and has to defend well to survive the middlegame and convert the extra bishop.
I defended quite well, however, my mini-blunder at move 34 in the following position is hardly explicable...
34. Kf2 Qh4+ 35. Kg1 was safe, but I played 34. Rd1? How could Black have won material (but, surprisingly, that even wouldn't have been the best continuation in Houdini's opinion)? That should be easy, see the next spoiler.
Continuation of the previous spoiler:
Spoiler:
34... Rxd1+ 35. Kxd1 Qa1+ would have won the bishop, but White would have still been winning due to the a&b pawns marching to glory. I had got distracted in analysis by other Black's 33rd moves I expected; I saw that Black's queen could access a1 in other lines, but in that very variation, I forgot about this possibility. What a blind spot of tactical vision! However, 34... Qh4+ keeping more pieces OTB (Houdini's favourite) was played instead.
Here's the full game score. I feel like annotating and posting it in the chess.com showcase subforum (and throwing a link here if done so). It's a great example of compensation of material by initiative and countersiege. The engine gives White merely about +1 at moves 11-25 despite the extra piece - White is playing essentially without it! Thanks for reading up to here to those who did it!
Last edited by coon74; 06-18-2014 at 05:13 PM.
Reason: made 4 spoilers instead of 3 for better intrigue