I've analyzed the game and was going to post it but I've decided to just use a diagram or two.
I was white against a person rated around 100 points lower than me. I've played him twice before in friendly games and in both games he was probably leading at one point before blundering.
I played d4 and, with me to move in the following position....
I played Ne5??
For some reason I had visions of an attack that wasn't there. I should've played Bd3 and castled before I did anything stupid (or better yet, just not do anything stupid). He played Qa5 and I'm down a bit.
I played a couple more inaccurate moves that traded two minors and in this position:
I played 19. Rxd5, a move that I calculated out and thought would be okay with me getting 4 pawns. Why four pawns you ask? Because after 19. ... c x Rook I would've followed it up with the big stinker 20. Bxb5+. and throwing the game away because 20. ... Ke7 protects everything and after 21. Qxd5 I've got nothing but two pawns for my Rook.
19. Rxd5 cxRook needed to be followed by 20. Q x d5 and the fork on the B and R keeps things equal.
Well, my opp didn't play 19. ... cxR (thank goodness) and instead played Be7 (Fritz' prefered move by the way) and after an error next move I ended up winning the end game (I was up three pawns). I could've won earlier but missed a tactic because I was trying to "simplify" down to the won endgame.
Good result for what could've been a real stinker.
((in the interest of full disclosure I should add that Rxd5 could've been played two moves earlier to good affect))
5 comments:
It takes balls to sacrifice a rook for 4 pawns in a middle game where your opponent has ideas of doubling rooks in on g-file for a mating attack. I would never have considered it. I'm sure you've analysed the game with a strong program, and that's your basis for saying that 'rxd5 was possible 2 moves a go' but in practical play against strong opposition I just don't believe those type of sacs would be successful. Well played in the end though.
The rook sac for four pawns was against what I thought was "best play," meaning there would've been opportunity for Black to misstep and quickly lose. Without that possiblity I would agree you.
The Rxd5 "two moves ago" was a lot easier to see, to be honest, a rather straight forward "sacrifice" that's not really a sacrifice.
I see in your blog you're looking at the sicilian, I think I'm going to (again) as well. The dragon for me, do you have any idea what type of sicilian you'd play?
Recently I've had the time to study different sicilians, and anti-sicilians. I strongly recommend that before you begin learning an open sicilian line, you first learn lines against anti-sicilians, such as grand-prix and closed sicilian and c3 sicilian. You don't have to learn the Bb5 sicilian, as that depends on what sicilian you end up playing.
I first looked at the najdorf, and made efforts to really learn it, but in the end I gave up as I was just overwhelmed by the theory. If you have a great memory, and loads of free time, then i recommend najdorf or the Sveshnikov. But if you don't have an olympiad memory, then there are 'easier' sicilians, but these come at a price.
I wouldn't recommend the dragon - I'll explain why in my blog.
I like "20. Q x d5 and the fork on the B and R" anyway. Definitely agressive and you get two pawns and a bishop and his open king for the rook which is more than adequate compensation. Then the b5 pawn is also weak.
Good stuff. Interesting position.
Post a Comment