lichess.org
Donate

Was my Bishop sacrifice wrong? (Ruy Lopez, Birds defense)

#8 these perfect moves are very easy .for example Ng4 Ke1 Qh4 g3.If insted of Qh4 u play Qf6 Be2 Qf2 Kd1 and what?u take on g2 and u have 2 pawns for a piece
thx for all the replies, useful :-)

#11:
"#8 these perfect moves are very easy .for example Ng4 Ke1 Qh4 g3.If insted of Qh4 u play Qf6 Be2 Qf2 Kd1 and what?u take on g2 and u have 2 pawns for a piece"

No I do not take on g2, I play Ng4-e3 Chek Mate!
not THAT easy I guess...
#13
You got a point!
I guess I have to stop sacrificing pieces when I can not figure out the consequences
The sacrifice was in practice correct but is in theory wrong.
"I guess I have to stop sacrificing pieces when I can not figure out the consequences"
Tal would have disagreed: "There are two kinds of sacrifices: correct ones and mine..."
Tal made dubious sacrifices even in his match against Botvinnik, where he became World Champion.
You can intuitively sacrifice when you feel you have enough compensation. A knight for two pawns and an exposed king is usually enough. A bishop for a pawn and an exposed king usually is not. There are plenty of variations where one side sacrifices without visible short term reward.
Tal was a grandmaster - playing like Tal entails playing like a grandmaster.
Tal was even world champion, but he was unique. Alekhine, Fischer, Kasparov, Kramnik occasionally also gave up material without a clear view of the consequences. Capablanca, Karpov, Carlsen probably would rather not give up a pawn without a clear view of the consequences.

You can play any style at any strengh.
Try your "style" against any player who has a corr rating within 100 points of their rapid rating.
You might be surprised

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.