lichess.org
Donate

What you can get away with against lower rated players on this site.

Literally the amount of unsound queen sacrifices. And I mean extremely unsound stuff you can get away with. Nether queen move was something I missed. I did them both on purpous and got extremely lucky you could say in both games. Though I had ideas connected to both sacrfices. Though still extremely unsound and totally opposite my play style. I generally do not like unbalanced positions let alone positions where I am a queen down for a pawn of compensation. I get nervous and not happy with positions when I am a pawn down with compensation let alone a queen down with no comp.

en.lichess.org/tKizhCyW/white

en.lichess.org/KwcBfHKG/black
@Drawish_Giri
Basically I want to see how much trouble I can get myself in and be able to hold or recover. So its a half exercise half I smoked a lot of something but I am not sure what.
the queen sac in #4 is actually much more unsound than those in #1.

Edit : OOps, I missed that you got two pieces for the queen , I thought you had only one knight and two pawns. You can discard most of what I said. Don't know if this is called a sacrifice, it looks like a trade, but lead in material imbalance (assymetry?), much like sacrifices. Thanks @wasilix for pointing this out.

In #4, you end up behind in developpement with nothing at all running.

In the first game presented in #1, you end up with a monster bishop and a mating net, if it was not defusable (kicking the g5 knight right away with the h pawn, or moveing the queen then attacking the light square bishop with the light square bishop), the sacrifice would have been very sound.

The fact that you killed a knight in #4 with your queen means nothing at all, as sacrifices are not about material gain.

In the second game, you got an attack on the f2 square and your opponent failed to find moves like 11.h3 or 11Be2 and instead moved the same piece several times, made a useless pawn move and remained uncastled, which resulted in your victory.
@f4xel I am yet to see a correct queen sacrifice for nothing but "strategic compensation" :D Seriously though, sacrifices are not about material gain - that's why they are called "sacrifice" in the first place. But claiming that sacrificing a queen for nothing but a slim initiative is more sound than for 2 pieces and a couple pawns with no initiative for either side is bizarre and simply false.
@wasilix Totally agree with your first sentence. I did not claim the queen sac presented here are sound (I even gave what I think are fast refutation to them), just that they are less unsound, in the sense that they require more calculation to be proven wrong. I miscalculated the material and did not see that white has two pieces for the queen (thought it was just two pawns (one if Ra2 were played) and a knight), so yeah, I'm wrong, 4 is actually kind of sound while the ones in #1 are not.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.