@@infinite7708 Unless you're Ian Nepomniachtchi, there is no way you can get away with this with someone who can see the best move. As the comment above me said, it creates bad habits if you want to improve yourself.
It's a potential trap. If the opponent sees it and counteracts you will be in trouble. However he didn't see it and fall in thus he is the one in trouble.
@@RHQ_W well yes and no, it depends on the time format and the strength of your opponent. Yes, you should take some time to figure out the best move by calculating the lines, yes you should review afterwards to see the potential refutation to your idea, but if you or your opponent don't have much time, or you have a material disadvantage already, I say you should try the move that's practically giving you winning chances.
It depends on rank and time format. Playing cheesy moves in classical is a bad idea, but in bullet even 3. Bh6 might be a good trap against indian defence premove
Define mistake. At different depths different moves become mistakes. Technically anything less than 3650 elo stockfish given 20 seconds to think will be a mistake. You can definitely catch people out on 2-3 turn mistakes.
There is another criterion that you didn't specify, but it came up twice in your analysis. That is: if you sac, can your opponent's Queen aid in defending her King, especially by directly opposing or interposing with your Queen? The threatened exchange of Queens will both neutralize most attacks and exposes the material disadvantage caused by the sac.
On this topic I highly recommand to read Vukovic's book "The Art of Attack in Chess". I remember in particular that he gives a list of 4 criterias for greek gifts which he considers that usually the sacrifice is correct if you have at least 3 of these criterias fulfilled. I think one fo them was "is the center blocked?" (not really the case here, although it does become blocked after acceptation of the second sacrifice from the knight) and another one was "is there no black piece able to come control h7 in one move?" (also not the case here as potentially the Bc8 can come to f5). I forgot the two other criteria, I think one of them was having a Rh1/ph4 for potential h file opening (read that book almost 30 years ago), but the whole book was a little jewel for attacking players and with very good practical advices, definitely worth reading and studying.
Im 2000 and I agree. Sure it has attacking opportunities, but I would much rather play h5 h6 and hopefully get a nice attack from there without a sacrafice
@williamsweeney5249 Definitely. As Bobby Fischer said: great opportunities come from a superior position. Not everyone has the understanding to play gambits as Mikhail Tal.
@@williamsweeney5249hi I am 1200 elo is it really bad to sacrifice a bishop or knight for a pawn to destabilize the enemy kings defenses, so far it has worked for me?
Feels you concentrate quite a lot on "why am I right" and avoid all the "why am I wrong?" Sure if your oponents makes all the bad moves that allow you to capitalize on your "blunder", you win. But realistically, you are just hoping for them to blunder a few times in a row.
In the middle of that sequence, the move I would have made was Ne6, forking the queen and the rook. And losing my knight to the bishop that was invisible to me for some reason.
Well even if your opponent were to play perfectly there is no way most players could calculate the move sequence in advance to know what the perfect moves would be. BUT if you could find at least one move by your opponent that casts doubt then I agree with you - it’s a no go on the sac. Generally if you aren’t making some sacrifices based on patterns and intuition then you are too passive of a player. You simply can’t calculate everything.
Meh I disagree. Chess is meant to be played for fun. If there's even a remote chance that a double or triple piece sac can lead to mate, you should go for it. Points come and go. The lulz of beating someone like this last forever.
I actually played a similar game yesterday. I sacrificed a bishop, which turned out to be a blunder, sacrificed a rook on the very next move and yet managed to checkmate my opponent in five moves. The problem was that I missed a checkmate in three because I got nervous. Fortunately, my opponent missed the only move that saves the game. That's an interesting concept, really. I much prefer a slow, methodical type of playing, attacking my opponent's weaknesses and creating a mating net. That said, if there's an opportunity to sacrifice my entire army for a quick checkmate, I might consider doing it.
Alternative title could be that you shouldn't just trust your opponent's sacrifices. Like you said, they can consolidate with Bf5 and the attack completely fizzles. After Qd1, Bf5 is not even an only move. Qe8, g6, even Bxg5 are all fine. I honestly think this game is just not a good example since the most obvious and forcing line is terrible for white with no compensation. There's the Colle vs John O'Hanlon game where the computer doesn't love Colle's Greek gift, but the normal move of Kg6 in response was a blunder. Even Kg8 would've required a series of precise moves to keep his advantage.
Fantastic stuff NL! I just checkmated opponents-twice- yesterday and I was going on the instinct that their was something there. You made me realize I need to go through the sources-including Logical Chess- to help me see these opportunities with more clarity. Thanks. You have an incredible gift for teaching this game. Bless you.
2:33 en passant is a playable move and it was just like how said nelson if black takes the pawn then theres a discover check and white will win. Even though I'm just 1500 I can analyze it because of what I just learned to stockfishes game
Excellent video. It’s great to hear you break down your process, what you noticed and why you chose a certain move (sometimes stockfish agrees, sometimes it doesn’t, but human-vs-human this is what you think is the best attack).
Actually sometimes, you can prepare a move (perhaps to block a king's escape)and if your opponent doesn't know what is happening and plays something else, you can play your next move and your opponent is stuck
Your queen is misplaced. It opens file for your rook, but opens file for their rook and opens up their queen/bishop to assist. Meanwhile you give up two minor pieces and have a misplaced queen. No, it is not worth it.
I have notifications turned on and I'm subscribed and your videos aren't coming up on my recommended which is frustrating cause I keep missing your videos 😢
Basically, that is a bluff move, similar to my rook sack. I sacked one rook which happened to be a bluff, it looked like I would be achieving a great attack but I didnt. My second rook sack and knight sack were brilliant moves that allowed me to checkmate my opponent with a casual queen manuevre.
When u sacrifice , it depends on who ur playing. There are so many smurf accounts that practice that it makes it difficult to get out of 500 to 600. Play 900 and it’s easier than 400 to 500.
Did exactly that the other day. I was losing real hard so i just sacrificed a piece to check the king. They took the bait and then all of a sudden i was winning.
Funny thing, I just did this in a game last week, knowing I would be behind but that the opponent will crumble under pressure. I got to a position with some 5 points of pieces behind but won in the end. Quite fun!
I think it os important to mention the number of peices in play for g5. Black can attack with pawn, Bishop and queen, you have pawn, knight and bishop, and your turn right?
At first i thought Be4 to put pressure on D5 but after Be3 there is nothing. I dislike the sac of the bishop, the knight sac looks fine, opening the H file often works for me
Pawn to g6 is the best move. If Rook f8 to g6, then check with rook h1 to h8. King takes then Qd4 to Qh5 check. King to g8, Qh7 check. King f8, Qh8 checkmate. Isn't it so?
if you go to high depth and stockfish still says it's a blunder, don't try to pass it as a "it makes sense" in some situations. Yeah sure, if your oponents blunders out you can recover, but you ain't beating stockfish.
Hello, first of all thank you for your great content, it helps me alot with getting better in chess. I have one question, why not after taking with the bishop: horse to d5, his horse probably takes and then taking with the queen would be a much easier and faster checkmate (If I don‘t miss anything, what could be the case, I am just 1.300) habe a great day and greetings from Austria
Sorry I just can’t get on board with this one. The lesson seems to be, if your opponent blunders 3 times, you can still checkmate after you mess up. Isn’t this just the definition of hope chess?
This is a good example position and probably a good idea to sac, but i think you did a poor job explaining why. In order for this sac to be good you have to calculate at least "takes+ takes Ng5+ takes takes+ Kg8 g6". The advise to sac just because you have seen similar pattern before is terrible hopechess.
@chess_vibes: You should make a video on _defensive_ techniques: the opponent is threatening to carry out a strong attack, we have to spot the threat and guess what's the appropriate defensive move. (Or do you already have such a video?...)
What about knight to g5 as first move as sacrifice. Black pawn takes it white takes with pawn which is taken by black bishop and then white bishop gives a check with support from its rook
yes because black could push their pawn to f5 and then the sac line is interrupted. White can't take that pawn because they lose the trade, then any other move white can make to try to set something up, black plays something like pawn to g6 and that entire attack idea is lost.
@@Prashant-7 (6:00) First of all, you wrote KE5. It would be Ke5, secondly, The K is for king and the king is on e1, so unless he can magically teleport there I don't see how we're gonna get there. Mind you we have our own fucking pawn on e5. Therefore I'm assuming you meant Nxd5. and you're threatening a discovered check which results in a double check. So, you just fucked up the notation, sure whatever, idc about all of that. So let's say the knight on b6 takes back our knight and then we go Qh3 like you said. YOU HANG YOUR QUEEN TO Bc8 AFTER SACKING THE ROOK. NOW YOU"VE LOST YOUR ROOK YOUR KNIGHT AND YOUR QUEEN AND YOU CAN RESIGN. I'm not mad at you hahah, you're just not seeing the sniper on C8, which is humorous, but on the other hand I can't stand you not thoroughly reading my previous comment, which is pretty fucking clear. So at 6:00: Nxd5, Nxd5 (or Qxd5), Rh8+, Kxh8, Qh3+, Bxh3. that's right. Bishop takes queen on h3. Dead, deceased, gone.
@@Prashant-7 First of all It's Ke5 not KE5, secondly the K stands for king and the king is on e1, so unless it can magically teleport to e5 we are not getting there, mind you our own pawn is standing on that same square. For those two reasons I'm assuming you meant Nxd5, which threatens a discovered check resulting in a double check, which leads to material loss or checkmate. Therefore they have to take the knight. Either with the queen or with the knight. Let's say they take with the Knight.Then according to your line you sacrifice the rook on h8, king takes, and then you go queen h3+. That just simply hangs your queen to bishop c8. The notation: Nxd5, Nxd5 or (Qxd5), Rh8+, Kxh8, Qh3+, Bxh3...... Now you've lost your rook, your queen and your knight. Time to resign.
Not usually a hater but this position is a pretty bad example, the queen is all the way on the queenside. If it was on d1 then consider the sac by all means, but we can't justify a sac when we have to spend time getting the queen in.
I am just a noob but what if you sack Rh8 check king has to take than Qh5 check and then g6??? Can he stop it ? Re8 Kg8… okay 😅 Wait and than bh7 what than???? Isn’t it like a force mate?? I think it is with Qf7 after Pxh6 and if not so Qg7 mate.. am I missing something???!!?!!!
I think the particular mating pattern is just bad advice with all due respect. At least in my head that's how i sound when I'm ablut to lose: "oh yeah if he goes abc i can checkmate him." Then of course he plays something else and i just lose 😢 You dont need a mating net/pattern to make the sacrifice good, you may just win material. For example, just cleaning up all the kingside pawns is often ample compensation for a piece.
What if he pushed his H pawn? I see this as a potential threat to opening the file for rook or attacking with a queen and bishop. But I am not really a chess player. Mr. Vibes didn't even mentioned that possibility, so this move might be trash somehow?
Depends a little on when you want to play that move. Starting position it would actually be a fine move, not great though. It's too slow, so black can be really annoying in the center with fxe5, creating their own attack by opening lines with white's king in the center.
There are too many defenders and g5 is blocked for a typicsl Ng5+ follow up and Qh5+ after. The queen doesn't even have a clear path there. Why on earth would you even considet Bxh7 The bishop was attacking h7 and you give it away. The knight was the other piece attackingg that side and you give it away. All just to open the file for the rook? You have to do some moving aroubd to double the rooks and bring some more pieces. Unless the opponent makes one move and you make two moves, this is just bad strategic advice.
This is fine if you play chess just to entertain yourself while taking a dump. But professionally or you're aiming to get better at chess this is bad advise. There's a reason why chess players review their games. Just because you can get away with a blunder like this against lower rated players doesn't mean its good advise to keep doing the blunder. because against higher rated players chances are you're gonna lose, thats why its a blunder. then you're gonna go asking yourself why the hell am i not improving, its because you insist blunders are a good mood. i mean come on, the amount of blunders here from the opponent just to get the win is ridiculous for a normal game in Competitive chess. Its like Kasparov against kramnik where kasparov kept playing the same line just because he believe its unbelievable even though he kept loosing
