19 ( +1 | -1 )
Knight sacrifice preventing castling
In some games (when i feel i have the nerve) i sacrifice a knight, forking Q/R, forcing the king to f2, preventing him from castling. What is your general opinion on this?
21 ( +1 | -1 )
I've tried that to sometimes,usually against weaker players to finish them of quickly.I think that with good play however,your opponent could keep the 2 pawns.
18 ( +1 | -1 )
there are lines as white
like the petroff when instead of Nf3 -Nxf7?! where there is some sharp play but I would rather play with the N instead of 2 pawns against anyone
6 ( +1 | -1 )
I didn't mean the opponent got two
actual pawns,just 2 pawns worth,or two points.
33 ( +1 | -1 )
What are 2 points? Do you see points on a chessboard? :)
The only example that I can think of where sacing a knight on f7 is sound (less so on f2) is in the Fried Liver Attack and its derivatives, e.g. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5!? 6. Nxf7!? Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Ke6. In this case the knight sac is only really sound because the king is forced to e6 and can't easily find shelter on f7 or g8.
29 ( +1 | -1 )
Only If u have some kind of attack planned in the near future...but against a strong defender, you would lose. Hitting that spot with the bishop can be used effectivly in the King's Gambit, but only a novice (such as my self) would allow for that...
63 ( +1 | -1 )
As always, it depends.
I play such exchanges on a semi-regular basis, and my general feeling is that they are okay if at least one of the following happens:
-The Black king can be forced to e6. This occurs in the Fried Liver/Lolli lines of the Two Knights and in some lines of the Cochrane Gambit in the Petroff.
-The Black king is driven to g8 where it interferes with the development of the h8-rook (situations where ...h5 would not be appropriate)
-White can give a series of checks with multiple pieces (two or three) that are currently undeveloped, and the checks occur such that the undeveloped pieces can be developed to useful squares.
0 ( +1 | -1 )