What are your thoughts of the kings side bishop during the opening for both white and black. In other words black sacrifices his kings side bishop and white sacrifices his kings side bishop after:
- e4 e5
- … …
Let’s see, how would that go?
- e4 e5
- Ba6 Ba3
Or, more likely, you’re talking about sacking at f7 / f2. You’ve been playing too much double bughouse.
Bill Smythe
My thoughts are that its a very, very poor choice for either side.
There are some good books to consider:
Point One - The Evolution of Chess Theory
Modern Ideas In Chess - Reti
Development of Chess Style - Euwe
Point Two - Basic Chess Theory
Chess Fundamentals - Capablanca
Winning Chess Strategy - Seirawan
There are a number of other books that can also be recommended in this area -
The reason I’m suggesting these is this:
In the first two books mentioned, under point one, the authors suggest the idea that the development of an individual chess player’s ability tends to mirror the development of overall chess development of overall chess theory.
If one follows the development of chess, from the implementation of the current rule set around the middle 1500’s - the players then were highly tactical, playing gambits and wild attacking ideas straight out of the opening. The best players of the day soon learned, by the time of Giulio Cesare Polerio (ca. 1550 - ca. 1610) and Gioachino Greco (c. 1600 – c. 1634) that Gambits as wild as what you have been suggesting do not work for purely tactical reasons.
However, chess strategy was very poor until François-André Danican Philidor (September 7, 1726 – August 31, 1795) came on the scene. Philidor at his peak was probably 200-300 rating points better than his contemporaries.
Chess is comprised of 4 elements - Space and Time are dynamic elements, Material and Pawn Structure are static elements. Players prior to Philidor had gained some rudimentary knowledge of Space, Time and Material. They really had no idea of the 4th dimension - pawn structure. It was Philidor who said “My main purpose is to make myself commendable by a novelty of which no one was aware or perhaps was capable [of discovering]; this is to play the pawns well; they are the soul of chess: it is they which uniquely determine the attack and the defence, and on their good or bad arrangement depends entirely the winning or losing of the game.”
The middle part of the phrase, that “Pawns…are the soul of chess” is the most famous quote - because of its artistry of statement. But it is the final bolded phrase that shows that Philidor had come to grasp the fundamental concept of Pawn Structure, and that he recognized that he had just discovered the “4th dimension” of chess.
By this point, Philidor had clearly moved chess theory beyond the point of attacks such as those that you have been suggesting.
The books I noted above (and many others) summarize the general goals of chess as developed by these players, and then Morphy, Steinitz and others after (Lasker, Tarrasch, Capablana, etc.). Basically, the ideas that you have suggested on a few occasions now are ones that chess players have rejected as workable since the 1700’s if not earlier. This suggests that while you are creative and highly enthusiastic, that there hasn’t been an opportunity for you to learn these fundamentals.
I realize that this may not be what you want to hear, but I believe in providing my students (or other players looking for advice) with direct and honest feedback. My suggestion to you is to hold onto your creativity and enthusiasm, but get a better handle on basic chess theory.
For example, you suggest here 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 with the idea of 3 Bxf7+. Let’s assume: 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 Bxf7+ Kxf7.
Let’s put that in context. We know from theory that an advantage of 1.6-ish pawns wins with best play. (An advantage of .75 to 1.6-ish pawns creates good chances to win, an advantage of .3-ish to .75-ish pawns creates an advantage, less than that is essentially equal.) So, you are suggesting that we sacrifice a Bishop, which is worth approximately 3.2, for a Pawn, which is worth 1. So White is already behind 2.2 in Material. Has White gained enough compensation in Space and time to offset this? The answer is no.
We can see that Black can refute White’s attack easily by just continuing with general principles of development: 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Bxf7+ Kxf7 4. Nf3 Nc6 (Developing and defending e5) 5. Ng5+ Kg8 6. d3 (to defend e4 and allow development) …h6 (Kicking the Knight and allowing an eventual Kh7 to develop the Rook) 7. Nf3 d5! (Again, Space and development [Time]) 8. exd5 Qxd5 9. Nc3 Bb4 10. O-O Bxc3 11. bxc3 Bg4. At this point Black has a big lead in development (an advantage in Time) has more Space, has more Material and is no worse in Pawn Structure. As soon as Black plays Kh7 he will be winning by MORE than the full Bishop White has sacrificed.
I hope from this you can see how a good understanding of basic chess theory would help a player to better see this, because as you can see, using principles all developed by 1900 it is possible to easily discern that the idea you wished to test is very bad for White indeed.
I hope that you find this analysis helpful, it is in that spirit in which it is offered.
My thought is that the player who is supposed to make the second sacrifice is most likely better by not doing so.
uscfsales.com/product_p/b0014is.htm
uscfsales.com/product_p/b0036re.htm
chesscafe.com/text/review317.pdf
uscfsales.com/product_p/b0072bt.htm
chesscafe.com/text/chestyle.txt
uscfsales.com/product_p/b0001rh.htm
chesscafe.com/text/review564.pdf
uscfsales.com/product_p/b0017is.htm
uscfsales.com/product_p/b0018is.htm
uscfsales.com/product_p/b0195em.htm
gmsquare.com/Reviews/winning … ldrich.pdf
I think the bishop sacrifice in the beginning or early middlegame can make for some memorable games. Both if you succeed in sacrificing your bishop, but far more memorable if you rebuff a bishop sacrifice with an opponent that plays sharply.
It gives a certain amount of satisfaction when your opponent’s attack finally runs out of steam and his position and you can turn the tables.
For the sacrifices I mean something like this:
- e4 e5
- Bc4 Bb4 (or any move that’s not Nf6, Nc6, Bd6 or d6…)
- Bxf7+
- Kxf7 Qh5+
- Kf8 Qxe5
Granted it’s not great because white only has a queen developed and black will develope its pieces quickly, but there’s always danger on both sides after the sacrifice.
I note that your rating peaked at 1504 in August, 2002, and that it’s now 1337. When did you start playing this bishop sacrifice?
Bill Smythe
First, 2…Nf6 is the natural and best move.
Second, even after 2…Bb4? 3 Bxf7+ and then correcting your above notation: 3…Kxf7 4 Qh5+ Kf8 5 Qxe5 , there is NO danger for Black. White is lost. For example:
5…Nc6
6Qf4+ Qf6
7 Qe3 (of course trading is just lost due to the material disadvantage) 7…d5!
Now if 8 exd5 Nd4 is killing, so…
8 Ne2 Qg6
9 00 (9 exd5? Qxg2) dxe4 with a tremendous advantage to Black.
Again, all of this is tactics and development - chess theory that was all worked out by 1900.