Sacrificing the exchange for defensive purposes

The motif of sacrificing material to obtain a pair of active bishops does not always have to be an attacking one. In the following game, Gligoric uses an exchange sacrifice to create complications that are not necessarily in his favour, but that offer practical defensive chances in an otherwise difficult position.

Gligoric suggested after the game that 19. h4! is stronger, when
he intended to play 19... h5 20. Nce4 Rxg5 21. Qxg5 Nbe8 , offering
to play an exchange-down ending where his bishop pair give him some practical drawing chances.

«Many of the Classicists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century claimed that two bishops versus rook and knight were equivalent. I don 't believe that this is the case, i.e., I think the extra material will usually win out, but this view continues to influence chess thinking to some extent even today» Steve Mayer - 1997.





Verdict: The sacrifice for active bishops is difficult to study in a
systematic manner. However, a pair of active bishops is frequently
adequate compensation for a pawn - or even the exchange - in a middlegame position.

Another good example is Fischer-Spassky 8th match game Reykjavik 27 July 1972. Fischer won, but 19...Qh5 might have held.

Thanks for sharing the game.

Indeed, two bishops and a pawn are often sufficient compensation when exchange down.

But according Glenn Flear BBP vs RN tend to be always worse.

Pair of bishops shouldn't be underestimated, but rook knight is still favourite.

Black has seized the initiative.
His bishop on e5 is tremendously
strong and there is an immediate threat of . . . .Bxb2.

In general, it is very double-edged to castle queenside into
the line of fire of a black bishop on the a l -h8 diagonal; unless of
course you have strong defences along this diagonal and have a
rapid kingside attack as compensation. In the present example,
White has neither strong defences nor a kingside attack. Therefore, 1 4 0-0-0 would be particularly foolhardy, and White has to prepare kingside castling.

After 13...Kxf8, position is roughly in balance.

Yes here too bishop's pair + pawn = adequate compensation for exchange. 17 f4 is kind of reckless, more prudent 17 Bf3. At the end Gurevich wins, but only because of a tactical trick that both players missed at first.

Cool! Here you are another interesting game on this topic: