If not, how would you push your advantage further with the white queen still on the board?
This game is too long ...
I think you have to trade on e8 as white, the only other option is the sad move Qb1
No, the question is from black's move not white. Looking at the board in the first post, Rae8 has not been played. So, black can choose to offer up a trade or not. If you play Rae8, then yes, it is pretty much a forced trade. That is what I am asking, from black's move not white.
@WillThisWolfBlunder said in #1:
> If not, how would you push your advantage further with the white queen still on the board?
No, I consider the game move a mistake that gives white some practical chances, if I may say so.
Instead 19...Rf4 and then 20...Ra8-f8 looks like a fine plan. Also 19...Rf6 comes to mind.
Black is a full knight up (vs. zero pawns) and the black pawn structure is solid. White however has a less good pawn structure.
Despite the fact that the black knight is not yet supported by a pawn, the active white pieces cannot do much, really.
And white needs to think about a possible knight fork on c2 as well.
OK, yes Rf4 is the best move. I found it myself, but Stockfish confirms. With the idea that after either Qd3 Raf8.
But both Rd8 and Re8 are winning too, so it's not all that important.
There is a common problem I have with evaluating trades. Here is another one I just played. I thought it would be perfectly fine trading, but apparently the rook is much more valuable on the board than getting traded. I also thought I was simplifying for an easier win.
"If you play Rae8, then yes, it is pretty much a forced trade."
No, it isn't a trade. You are giving up two rooks for a queen.
Also your second example isn't a trade. You're losing the exchange (either 30 Rb6 or 30 Ra7 look like they're winning a piece there).
@MrPushwood said in #8:
> "If you play Rae8, then yes, it is pretty much a forced trade."
> No, it isn't a trade. You are giving up two rooks for a queen.
That is a trade, maybe not good, but it is a trade.
> Also your second example isn't a trade. You're losing the exchange (either 30 Rb6 or 30 Ra7 look like they're winning a piece there).
I see it as trading down. Again, and this is more clearly seen with an engine, it was not a good trade.
@WillThisWolfBlunder said in #9:
> I see it as trading down. Again, and this is more clearly seen with an engine, it was not a good trade.
If losing the exchange in your second example was intentional then I would call it a sacrifice.
Trading pieces in chess is about exchanging pieces of the same theoretical value.
Furthermore, in both of your examples you can learn that rooks in open position can be very strong.
In the book Learn from the legends by GM Marin he has a chapter on former WC Mikhail Tal his favorite sacrifice, two light pieces vs. rook + 1 pawn or more pawns with the idea to use the force of the rook(s) in the open positions, combined with a pawn or more up. In closed positions a knight might, temporarily maybe, be worth a lot more than a rook.