82 ( +1 | -1 ) an unusual line in sicilian-grand prix attackRecently I lost an interesting game which began
1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. ed Nf6 4. Nf3 Nxd5 5. Bc4?! Nb6!? (5... Nxf4 6.0-0) 6. Bxf7+?! Kxf7 7. Ne5+ Kg8 8. Qh5 g6 here I played the horrible 9. Qf3? and eventually had to resign in 30 moves or so, but after 9. Qg5 Nbd7 10. 0-0, I think white has enough compensation for the bishop since black has lost the right to castle, his king's rook will be out of the game for a while, has no practical ways of chasing white's Q, will open the f file for white's rook if he exchanges knights, and has weak pawns to boot. Would everyone aggree with me that white has enough of an attacking potential to get value for his sacrificed bishop later on? Or is it a premature sacrifice that is doomed to failure against a good defensive player and it's a much safer and sensible thing to play 6. Be2?
I would appreciate any experinced players' assesment/analysis of this position.
76 ( +1 | -1 ) Would you be able to post the entire game?
After 5... Nxf4 white plays 6. d4, regaining his pawn with a slight edge in play, due to the double attack on the c pawn and Black Knight at f4.
I would say that black is slightly better. After the aforementioned Qg5, Black plays Bg7 Be6. and Nd5. If he suceeds in the policy of trading queens then black should have a comfortable win. Although it seems that black is playing without a rook, he should be able to defend well. Directly after the sacrifice, white dosent have enough resources to exploit the weakened king position. This allows black to develop accordingly, and ward off any white pressure.
Becuase of the latter, i say that its a premature sacrifice, but nevertheless exiting.
108 ( +1 | -1 ) after Nxf4after Nxf4 I'd still prefer to castle as regaining the pawn would a)give Black a chance to exchange queens with advantage (Qxd1+) b)white would end up with doubled-pawns on the c-file. I think castling is stronger as it prepares white to attack f7 a third time with a move like Ne5 or Ng5 when black has wasted a lot of tempo moving the same knight 3 or 4 times. I'd prefer not to post the entire game as it is one of my worst losses and one in which I played particularly badly after sending my bishop on an impulsive (but interesting) kamikaze mission in the opening. Let it suffice to say that, I allowed my opponent to develop quickly enough to prevent me from castling, my position worsened with every move and eventually my king was caught in the middle. I think the bishop sacrifice is an interesting idea that inflicts some long term weaknesses in black's camp. But I guess you are right that it's premature and black effectively has a won position. I suppose it may work well in a blitz game but in a correspondance match it's rather suicidal to play.
85 ( +1 | -1 ) After 1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 Nf6 4. Nf3 Nxd5 5. Bc4 Nb6 6. Bxf7+ Kxf7 7. Ne5+ Kg8 8. Qh5 g6 9. Qg5 N8d7 10. 0-0, White looks like he's just losing to me:
10... Nxe5 11. fxe5 Bg7 and White has no attack. For Black, the light bishop comes to f5, the queen to d4, and maybe ...c4 is thrown in for good measure.
Yes, the h8-rook is out of play but White's development is not particularly speedy and White is down a piece, after all. In general, to exploit a weakened king position like this, it helps a great deal to have the light-squared bishop still available. You also need superior development to exploit this position, either through outright fast development or by forcing Black into a situation where his pieces are stumbling over one another. In the position at hand, White simply doesn't have the positional elements necessary to make this kind of attack work.