Chess World.net Instructive Game: A pawn sacrifice which turned out okay! White vs Sicilian

[Papajack55]

i was acualy pondering the unfortunate g5 for white on move 17.only because some times lines that appear to be dangerous or losing upon further analysis contain some double exclams

[Kasparovwannabe]

Kings I am not sure that Ng5 was actually a zwischenzug. An in between move is were you play a move before you play the routine move. In this case you never played the capture so Ng5 was not in between anything it was just a sacrifice.

[Otherguylb]

Generally I try to take the pawns near king with my pawns because it gains time and doesn't let the opponent to close the position. I saw the Bishop sac easily when you asked about it, but I could not have seen it with other variation which is better according to engine...

[pfalcon7777]

After watching your videos on "playing the position" vs. "strategic crush", I am of the opinion that what to do in a current situation depends a lot on the time we have on our clocks. If it was a long game like in the leagues in England, then it could be worthwhile to "play the position" almost every time because we have the luxury of time to some extent.

Having said that, I must say that in this case even if I were to have calculated fxe5, I would not have seen the Nxg5 trick. So f5 for me!

[matttttes]

Intuitively, f5 is the right move. But it would really depend on the time I am able to invest here. If I am low on time, I can not see all the lines after fxe5 Nxe5 Bxh6, so I play f5. If I have some time left, it is first of all important to note, that this position is really a critical one, because I have to decide, whether I play positionally (f5) or if I have a tactics, based on fxe and Bxh6. Once you see the idea (Bxh6), and you notice, that this is critical, you should invest much time!

[matttttes]

@matttttes But as long as you can not see a clear line after fxe5, you should play f5 definetely!

[TheFoxgirly]

Would have played f5 myself. It just looks more natural to me who can't calculate so much or that deep.

Out of curiosity though, what was your opponent hoping to achieve by playing gxf5?

About engines. They are more like a tool than something we should try and play after. We are humans and we play human moves. Will we ever be as strong as computers? Kasparov evaluated 3 positions in a sec. Deep Blue evaluated 200 million in the same time :) The answer is no!

[EK22able]

KC why take the exchange Bxf8 instead of playing Qh4 which keeps the attack and if Ng6 then Qh5. His useless rook on F8 is way worse than your bishop on H6

[kingscrusher]

@EK22able How does Bxf8 not keep the attack?! It seemed completely winning to me

[northlondonguitarist]

@kingscrusher as supported by the fact that your opponent resigned two moves later. If that is not keeping up an attack, I don't know what is

[geniusspyros]

F5 to be honest  :)

[Nola213]

I would have played f5 for sure, that knight does look scary after f takes. I also wouldn't be kicking myself too much about this. You mated him anyway. There's more than one way to skin a cat, ya? After you played f5; unless there's a way for white to get out of it (and he missed it, I don't think there is) then I wouldn't feel so bad about it. Your winning either way.

Sure there's room for improvement, but isn't there almost always? I think you should enjoy the win. GG btw!

[kingscrusher]

@Nola213 Well we will never be as good at calculation variations as engines are. So maybe it's time to distinguish between "Engine best move" and "Human best move" accepting the limitations of humanity. Given such an approach, it seems f5 is a guaranteed solid advantage independent of not being able to see the variations involving Black playing the resourceful Ne5-f3+ dragging back the rook from h3 to f3 which is then useful for g5. So a kind of "ignorance is bliss" approach is in f5.

[kingscrusher]

@kingscrusher You see also the main argument would seem to be the problem with f5 is g5. But here, the bishop on a2 is now strong anyway, and h4 seems a good way to chip away at the black pawn triangle.

[WalkerH4O2]

to see the full value of fxe5, you really need to see all the way until Rf7. only a strong master would see that line from the onset of fxe5. having said that, keep in my mind, that you are sort of a strong master. however, your greatest strength is your blitz play. in slower games, i feel that you become more and more average. even in 15 minute games you are often winning because of time pressure. you always have more time on your clock. you are not in the habit of thinking deeply. :-)

[kingscrusher]

@WalkerH4O2 Yes I think although your comments sound a bit harsh, I am trying to use 15 minute chess now as well as for better commentary, to try and get more confidence for longer time limits. So far it seems to be paying off for my club games.

[ilyaseleznyov]

@kingscrusher It is very hard to opbjectvely analyse a lot of the decision of great players without the aropriate intuitive depth that @ walker is talking about. There is merit in his point because we dont want to believe things that are incorrect on a deeper level. But kingscrusher rocks nd we all appreciate your uploads

[kingscrusher]

@ilyaseleznyov Remember even chess Grandmasters are no where as near as strong as engines tactically, so there must be an element of "Make the position easier to play" rather than "Try and play the best engine type move". GM's cannot calculate as well as engines. They cannot achieve the same level therefore of the "Play the position" approach.

[WalkerH4O2]

@kingscrusher what is confidence in chess? you can be completely nervous and doubtful and still win, if you just make good moves. confidence is a psychology thing. bobby fischer said, "i don't believe in psychology, i believe in good moves." i recall winning games and feeling like i was playing ugly, then reviewing the games with engine check and seeing that my moves were sound. all you have to do in chess is move your pieces to good squares in a timely fashion.

[selfoe]

@WalkerH4O2 I disagree...In playing good moves there's decission making involved and in taking decission there's psychology involved...If you can abstract yourself from the emotional factors of the thinking process then your last name must be Houdini 2.0...Jokes aside, I seriously doubt anyone is capable of finding good moves automatically, without some kind of intuitive (emotional even) analysis.

[WalkerH4O2]

@selfoe you are trying to say many things here. it is a bit unclear to me what your main point is. maybe you can restate your main point. what do you think bobby fischer meant when he said, "i don't believe in psychology, i believe in good moves."? i have a degree in psychology, by the way. :-)

[selfoe]

@WalkerH4O2 Sorry about that...I am only trying to state that psychology is an important part of chess, as we make decissions based not only in the game itself, but also in our state of mind...I think Fischer's statement intends to point out the opposite, and with that I disagree...You may disagree with me as well, I don't have a degree in psychology so you probably know better...It's my humble opinion only...xD

[WalkerH4O2]

@selfoe if we make decisions based on our state of mind, what does that tell us? it tells us that state of mind is important to achieve good results, right? so, what is the "best state of mind" for playing chess. imagine that we could prepare our state of mind before a game. how would we want to prepare it or design it before the game? is it possible to remove everything except for our focus on "good moves"? and maybe "good moves" is our "best possible state of mind".

[selfoe]

@WalkerH4O2 I agree with that...But I also believe that as humans, it is impossible for us to achieve a state of mind that exclusively focus on "good moves"...How do we decide what are good moves anyway?...We can only tell objectively after the game is over...We can assume perhaps we are making good moves and focusing on that exclusively, but I believe there's at least some thought in the back of our minds, which is unrelated to "finding good moves" operation.

[WalkerH4O2]

@selfoe we should always try to do the best that we can in chess and all other parts of life. if we are making good moves in chess then it is likely that we are also making good moves in the rest of life.

[mattiassollerman]

@WalkerH4O2 Fischer also said "Psychologically, you have to have confidence in yourself". The addition of "and this confidence should be based on fact." makes the quote somewhat ambiguous but then again, quote mining never was a solid foundation for an argument. Isn't sport psychology a rather well developed field anyway, regardless of anecdotal evidence (e.g. sometimes playing well even when nervous)?

[WalkerH4O2]

@mattiassollerman sometimes there is a common word like "confidence" that refers to a concept, but we honestly don't know what the concept is. can you define or explain what the word "confidence" means to you? it seems to me that (speed+good moves=wins). speed and good moves require energy. so i tend to consider how we use energy to be very important in our results. but "confidence" and other similar concepts, are not things that i reflect on much.

[AlanWattParrot]

what makes yr attack lethal rather than just disabling is N on e4 supporting a potential Qxf6 n Ba2 controlling crucial escape sq around his K (to state the obvious) so a3! worked out nicely

ida recoiled fr playing f5 blocking the position despite an immediate h4 as it seems to give him time to extricate himself so yes ida played fxe n sac'd on h6 ..having just seen it unfold lol -on first glace i share yr exact concerns

hope ycan get up to 200 this season, you've slipped slightly this last yr

[gunuffimoo]

F5 is very human. If you think back to Carlsen vs. Aronian Tata Steel. Carlsen even walks into a pin with his king to preserve his knight for a kings attack. Central knights looks very threatening to the human eye, cause they can often become very tactical. So f5 is clearly a good human choice !!

[SuperAkaras]

Second response, finished watching nearly, @18:46. I thought fxe5 looked really dangerous for black, when you were playing through the actual game earlier. Bxg4 is ruled out because of exf6+, and moving the queen anywhere that eyes h6 looks crushing. Nxe5 blacks other option, white plays Bxh6, Kxh6 only reasonable move, Qh4+, Kg7 forced, and now Rh3 and black is getting mated unless they give up material. Good visualisation practise calculating everything without using a board.

[kriss456]

And f5 just looks more human, so I would play it. Also it does not offer much counterplay

[kriss456]

Beautiful! Those Tal games seem to pay off!

[waterclearascrystal1]

After 17. f5, Houdini 1.5a in two machines mode (5mins/40 moves) ends up queening the f pawn and black resigns after move 37. I think you should work on your tactics rather than waiting for opponents to blunder (17...gxf). Practice against Houdini.

[waterclearascrystal1]

@waterclearascrystal1 sorry, that's "almost queens the f pawn." It's mate at move 47 on analysis mode.

[BasicPawn]

I would have played f5. I also wouldn't have played g4. This boils down to the old arguement of whether a player is more positional or tactical. Ultimately, if you want to improve, you need to develop both aspects. If you were considering the Bxh6 sac and the potential follow up with Qh4, then working backwards, its not that hard to see fxe5 could make sense. I'm trying to work on my tactics to balance my game.

[SuperAkaras]

@8:20 - glad to see Ng5 was played, i was looking at it myself as the obvious looking move.

Concerning zwischenzugs.... i don't play otb, and haven't for a long time, but in correspondence games i'm always on the lookout for them, as i have the luxury of staring at the position as long as i want. Blitz games or other shorter time control games online, they're just as important; the longer a tactical line you calculate, the more likely you are to miss the quiet / inbetween moves.

[heavyyield]

Love the daily uploads. Keep em coming!