I dont do it very often, but when i do it, 90% of the time Computer analysis say its bad.
Trading a minor piece for 1 pawn and no more castling for the king looks bad but this positions are funny to play :)
In that game :
fr.lichess.org/97IBek4t/blackAfter white play 7.Kxf2 it looks not that much comfortable for white i guess.
Ok i m beginner he is GM and it was a simul and the host look he is in time trouble, i had no chances anyway. But in the case my opponent is under 2000 lichess rating is this kind of thing viable?
Because under ''pressure'' we all do more mistakes specially in games between 1-15 min. And that's sure my opponent have no preparation against that probably.
What's the idea behind a minor piece sacrifice like that ?
When you sacrifice a piece in an early phase of the game the idea behind that is basically to play for the initiative, but this means that you should be able to bring as many pieces into the attack as possible before your opponent stabilizes. That's what happened in your game: after the piece sac you only managed to get your Queen active and while you were picking up a few pawns white developed a strong initiative himself and you had to defend very accurately just to survive the middle-game.
Next time, when you are sacrificing a piece in the opening make sure you can keep your initiative going, then even slightly dubious sacrifices (Cochrane gambit) might work out very well!
i am rarely able to sac profitibly myself, but i think i can give a bit of advice. first, know how much the sac will hurt your opponent. when you played Kxf2, your opponent had a knight, bishop and pawn in the center, and your pawn controlled less of it. with a little care, you can wander your king if you control the center, which white did.
even if that was not the case, a good sac needs to have a plan to take advantage of the positional problems you introduced. so you briefly exposed my king. fine. what happens next?
u need development to sack pieces or win material back
in which case its not a sacrifice, the other option is create
a passed pawn in the endgame but just sacking one piece alone
it wont work since there are a lot of defence resources in Chess.
the idea of a sacrifice is usually not justified, it was in an earlier period, the Romantic Period of chess, with Morphy Anderssen and so on, there are still sacrifices nowadays but its less common since chess its quite a materialistic game.
You can learn tactics and combos though, it will help u in those situations.
In the game for example after u sack, he can put the king
on the dark square g1 after developing the rook to e1 or f1
and he is pretty safe
That king is not open after u sack (Its not like its on the middle of the board e4, d4, e5, d5 ...) there is no compensation
since it can hide again, u need development as I said.
A tip can be to attack one square with more than one piece,
try to coordinate the pieces.
A beautiful example for positional compensation and extreme coordination is the Queen sacrifice in the game Caruana-Nakamura, London Chess Classics 2016, where they reached this position:
lichess.org/editor/r1bqk2r/p4p2/3p1b1p/3NpN2/1P2P1BP/8/1PP5/2KR3R_b_-_-It's not 3-check wins, or is it?
Sacrificing the only developped piece and trying to win with the queen alone against a whole army? Well, ask yourself how this is gonna work against anyone!?
@sargon pffff dont even want to answer you...
@dionysus_god thx for the vids
The second you traded queens you were immediately lost. If your opponent's king is in the center and he cannot castle, you need to keep your queen on the board so you can attack! Remember- when you are down material, you DON'T want to trade pieces!
