It took me like 20 minutes to solve the first one, nice one IMO.

I missed the best move almost every time this game, but still finished with a queen sac. First time I've ever pulled off one like this

http://www.ficsgames.com/cgi-bin/sho...31;action=show

In honour to the great Tartakower, with regard to sacrificing one´s Queen, it´s probably better to sacrifice the opponent´s than your own.

not really, serious misses only on moves 11 and 14 (Bd3 and Bc4). well played overall

http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game...r.php?id=33377

This one is a correspondence game of mine. Of course the tactics are all computer assisted as correspondence chess is some sort of "advanced chess" these days. The next move will be Qxf1 transposing into a simple technical win.

Not sure if that really counts as a q sacrifice, but the game is nice and thematic for that variation. How much did you have to "help" the computer in the middlegame?

This line leads to the type of positions where every move looks just as good. That is why the computer isn't much of a help in the early stage of the middlegame and this is the reason why I play that line in correspondence games (and never lost with it so far).

I made all the strategical decisions (moves 11-17) which was pretty easy, because I have lots of experience with that line and most of the moves are just obvious. Once it got forced I only had to make sure that the white attack doesn't crash through, so I played through all the forced lines to the very end (sometimes deep into the endgame) in order to avoid problems with the search horizon.

The cruical decision was to play 17. Qa2 or not, because it burns the bridges as the queen is too far away to help on kingside defense. My opponent certainly wanted me to go pawn hunting, but he underestimated the power of the queen+knight tandem which gave me enough counterplay. I spend a lot of time on that move and had the position all the way up to move 32 on my analysis board.

His f4 was also suboptimal because it takes away the f4-square from his knight which could have been an additional attacking piece. If he plays f3 instead there are lines where black has to force a perpetual.

Btw, when Fischer mentioned that he thought the Winawer with it's turtle like structure was incorrect but he didn't know how to refute it yet, he was talking about this exact line. I have never lost a correspondence game with it, so I share that part of his opinion.

My god, I just love the French so much.

Shandrax, what is the theoretical staus of the 10. Ne2 line nowadays? I play this myself as Black but haven't really been following theory recently. I know it was considered a decent sideline to 10. Bd3 (as it saves a tempo in the Bd3 main line) but I don't know about any new developments. Here, I would have been "out of book" after 13. Rb1.

Well, I don't believe in this Ne2-line for a simple reason: In the Bd3 mainline the "improvement" for black is to play Rc4 and Nc6 in order to force white to play the pawn to c3. In the Ne2-line white volutarily plays c3, so black saves time on the "funny" rook maneuver. Other than that I don't really see much of a difference. The position is very stable in both lines, white has no pawn breaks and black can just shuffle pieces around and wait for white to overextend.

While black has the structurally superior position in the middlegame and full development on top of it, I am still convinced that white has enough play to keep equal chances. If the black king could march all the way to a8, I would say that black is much better if not winning, but unfortunately such ideas always fail to tactical shots against the h7-pawn. This is where computer help is nice, because you can try out so many ideas.

From Net-chess game I finished recently.

White: sp(2358)
Black: wvmaniac (2461)


1.e4 e5 2.Ng1f3 Nb8c6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 d5 5.e5 dxc3 6.Bf1b5 cxb2 7.Bc1xb2 Bf8b4 8.Nb1d2 Ng8e7 9.O-O Bb4xd2 10.Qd1xd2 Bc8e6 11.Nf3d4 O-O 12.Nd4xe6 fxe6 13.Bb2a3 Nc6xe5 14.Qd2g5 Ne7g6 15.Qg5h5 Rf8f5 16.Qh5d1 c6 17.Bb5a4 Ng6h4 18.Ba4c2 Qd8g5 19.g3 Nh4f3 20.Kg1g2 Qg5h5 21.h3 Qh5xh3!!-Queen sac 22.Kg2xh3 Rf5h5 white resigned.

found this gem on chessgames this morning. Incredible.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070732

Ah, the KID-sac-your-queen-for-2-minors. Apparently developed by this guy: Leonid Yurtaev (some games linked to in the kibitzing there). Definitely looks like fun.

ya i had a giant erection after seeing that one.

no but seriously, i went through that game 5 different times. i don't get how he foresaw all of those later moves. i wonder if he even did...i sort of feel like the sacrifice was just an instinctual thing he rolled with.

The link I provided suggests that Kasparov bought or at least borrowed the idea from Yurtaev.

There are 3 lines involving a queen sac that I know of. One in the Sämisch-KID, one in the Rauzer Sizilian with h6 and Bf4 and one in the Accelerated Dragon (this time white is giving up the queen).

Personally I find it quite disturbing that you have to be prepared give up your queen in order to play a mainline.

+ the sicilian nadjorf has a mainline queen sac

+ http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1020254
not the best of must-win variations for black though

Here are two where I had black vs. the same opponent:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3
Qc7 9. O-O-O Nbd7 10. g4 b5 11. Bxf6 Nxf6 12. g5 Nd7 13. f5 Nc5 14. f6 gxf6 15.
gxf6 Bf8 16. Rg1 h5 17. Rg7 b4 18. Nd5 exd5 19. exd5 Bg4 20. Re1+ Kd8 21. Qf4
Kc8 22. Ne6 fxe6 23. Rxc7+ Kxc7 24. Qxb4 e5 25. Qa5+ Kd7 26. b4 Bh6+ 27. Kb2
Bd2 28. Rb1 Bxb4 29. Qb6 Na4+ 0-1


1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3
Qc7 9. O-O-O Nbd7 10. g4 b5 11. Bxf6 Nxf6 12. g5 Nd7 13. f5 Nc5 14. f6 gxf6 15.
gxf6 Bf8 16. Rg1 h5 17. Rg7 b4 18. Nd5 exd5 19. exd5 Bg4 20. Re1+ Kd8 21. Qf4
Kc8 22. Ne6 fxe6 23. Rxc7+ Kxc7 24. Qxb4 e5 25. Qa5+ Kb7 26. Kb1 Bd7 27. a3 Bh6
28. Qb4+ Ka7 29. Rxe5 Rab8 30. Qd4 dxe5 31. Qxc5+ Rb6 32. Qc7+ Rb7 33. Qd6 Bf8
34. Qxa6+ Kb8 35. d6 Rg8 36. Bc4 Rg1+ 37. Ka2 Rd1 38. Qa5 Bxd6 39. Qd8+ Bc8 40.
f7 Rxb2+ 41. Kxb2 Bxa3+ 42. Kxa3 Rxd8 0-1

25...Kb7 was an improvement, but I overlooked Rxe5 ideas in both games. (White has 28.Rxe5 in the first game).

could white improve towards the end because he goes in for a draw...?

there's one in the Gruenfeld I feel I should be familiar with, probably in a ...Qa5 line. I think it's meant to be quite good for Black, but I forget it now

At least one mainline Botvinnik SS where white sacs his queen.

Marriage and divorce! High stakes version

maybe this one?...:
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Qb3 dxc4 6. Qxc4 0-0 7. e4 a6 8. e5 b5 9. Qb3 Be6 10. exf6 Bxb3 11. fxg7

Dunno about that particular game, probably White could have kept some pressure on a little longer (he's not gonna lose anyway obv). The line in general is pretty drawish after 12.-b5 like these examples show: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesslike.pl?gid=1020254. It's a no risk shot for W though, and if he wants a more complex game he can play 7.Ne5.

Nf6+ followed by Qxh5 is obviously faster, but I just couldn't resist winning with the King move, so the game ended 1. Qxh5 Qc1+ 2. Ka2 black resigns.