Answers.Body: <p>18... Rb8 19.Bc7</p>
  
  <p>He cannot continue with 19... Rb7 (you will simply capture his bishop for free).</p>
  
  <p>Now if you play 20.Rad1 and follow with 21.R1d7+, he will be forced to capture your rook with his light bishop (otherwise you are going to soon capture both his queenside pawns for free), you would reply by taking his rook with your d8 rook and then destroy his two queen-side pawns. Your victory is then guaranteed!</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-06-14T18:52:10.827Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-06-14T18:52:10.827Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Youstay Igo
Answers.Body: <p>Here are my thoughts - sorry, thought you were playing black. Hopefully still of value to you.....</p>
  
  <p>2...f6 was indeed bad...resulting in Nxe5 followed by Queen incursion. </p>
  
  <p>4...dxe5 is bad, allowing queen trade and subsequent loss of castling privilege.
  Losing the right to castle while every other piece is still on board is bad.
  Queens alone being removed does not make it safe enough.
  Can you see how white's early castling "doubles down" on black's inability to 
  castle - making that disadvantage stand out even more?</p>
  
  <p>6...Nh6 is also bad, inviting doubled pawns.
  Although the trading of pieces WOULD suit the black uncastled king. 
  Is that bit of safety worth the doubled pawns? Is a question to try and answer. </p>
  
  <p>9...c6 is a lot of pawn moves so far and has weakened the dark squares around 
  the black king - AND white still has his dark squared bishop. 
  It appears as if 7...a6 was preparing for a later ...b5 (which WOULD 
  give the black white-squared bishop the nice long diagonal) except that 8...b5 doesn't work 
  here because of white's earlier 8. a4 
  It looks like maybe black noticed this a little late and decided on 9...c6 instead. Yet this is the type of calculation to try before committing to moves.
  Black shouldn't have felt compelled to make another pawn move in the vicinity JUST because he suddenly realized that ...b5 wouldn't work.</p>
  
  <p>12...Nf7 just losses a piece outright. Black is now down a piece, therefore positional considerations like pawn structure or active/inactive piece are really not relevant for him now. Unless the lost piece provided an irresistible initiative that outweighed material, then positional considerations take a back seat to material and should not be considered on par with it. Once material balance is restored, positional factors regain their importance.</p>
  
  <p>As to your question:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>How should I handle such conditions where my opponent Is just attacking my 
  attacking pieces?...Before putting your pieces into positions of attack, you should try to calculate whether your opponent can easily just chase them. If he can, perhaps a short term plan could involve a way to PREVENT him from easily chasing them?</li>
  </ol>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-09-20T17:02:31.267Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-09-20T17:20:13.073Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2017-09-20T17:20:13.073Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Joe Quimby
Answers.Body: <p>Given that you are a piece up with a dominating position, exchanging the bishops isn't a problem at all. Note, that it is just an exchange, not a sacrifice.</p>
  
  <p>You could have played 19.Bc7 instead, in that case black has to react 19…Ra8 or he will lose even more material (for example 19…Rb7 20.Rxc8 Kd7 21. Rxf8 with three pieces for a rook, which is a bit much …). </p>
  
  <p>Concerning your weaknesses: </p>
  
  <p>Only 10.b4 strikes me as truly bad, blundering a pawn and misplacing your knight. And 15.Nc3 would have prevented your second pawn blunder. </p>
  
  <p>So you won this game because your opponent blunders pieces whereas you only blunder pawns. Stop blundering pawns and you'll start beating those players that blunder pawns. And then we'll talk about why 2…f6 is a bad move and how to punish it.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-06-12T15:42:46.183Z
Answers.Text: very inforamative and yeah I found how bad is 2...f6 as there are sharp responds as 3.Nxe5 ? thank you
Answers.UserDisplayName: u185619
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-06-12T15:17:54.647Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-06-12T15:17:54.647Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Body: <p>Upon reviewing a game I played. I started to feel bad about exchanging my attacking bishop for my opponent’s useless one. But I believe that I had no other choices. I want your opinion about what I should have done in this situation.</p>
  
  <p>I am a 1200 rated player on chess.com</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN ""]
  
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.d4 d6 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Bc4 Nh6 7.O-O a6 8.a4 Nd7 9.Nc3 c6 10.b4 Bxb4 11.Na2 Bf8 12.Bd2 Nf7 13.Bxf7 Nc5 14.Ba5+ Kd7 15.Rfd1+ Ke7 16.Bb3 Nxe4 17.Rd8 b6 18.Bxb6 Rb8 19.Rad1 Rxb6 20.Rxc8
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>In the end I won by checkmate because he blundered. What I want to know is how should I handle positions where my opponent is just attacking my attacking pieces. Additionally, please try to find where my weak points are in the game. </p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-06-12T13:04:18.650Z
Comments.Text: 2...f6 was a mistake. White could have done 3.Nxe5!
Comments.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-06-12T13:05:18.143Z
Comments.Text: To me, it was more like a blunder rather than a sacrifice.
Comments.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-06-12T13:10:11.280Z
Comments.Text: could you give explanation why 19.Rad1 it a blunder rather than a sacrifice of a bishop
Comments.UserDisplayName: u185619
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-06-14T21:11:54.687Z
Comments.Text: It's a mistake because your bishop is better than his. It's not a sacrifice because the bishops are of equal value.
Comments.UserDisplayName: limits
Tags: <analysis><middlegame><sacrifice><advantage>
Title: Was this sacrifice a good one?
ThreadText: # Was this sacrifice a good one?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2015-06-12)
  
  Upon reviewing a game I played. I started to feel bad about exchanging my attacking bishop for my opponent’s useless one. But I believe that I had no other choices. I want your opinion about what I should have done in this situation.
  I am a 1200 rated player on chess.com
  [FEN ""]
  
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.d4 d6 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Bc4 Nh6 7.O-O a6 8.a4 Nd7 9.Nc3 c6 10.b4 Bxb4 11.Na2 Bf8 12.Bd2 Nf7 13.Bxf7 Nc5 14.Ba5+ Kd7 15.Rfd1+ Ke7 16.Bb3 Nxe4 17.Rd8 b6 18.Bxb6 Rb8 19.Rad1 Rxb6 20.Rxc8
  
  In the end I won by checkmate because he blundered. What I want to know is how should I handle positions where my opponent is just attacking my attacking pieces. Additionally, please try to find where my weak points are in the game.
  
  **Tags:** analysis, middlegame, sacrifice, advantage
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: 2...f6 was a mistake. White could have done 3.Nxe5!  
  > **username_1**: To me, it was more like a blunder rather than a sacrifice.  
  > **username_0**: could you give explanation why 19.Rad1 it a blunder rather than a sacrifice of a bishop  
  > **username_2**: It's a mistake because your bishop is better than his. It's not a sacrifice because the bishops are of equal value.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2015-06-12. Score: 8 | Accepted answer
  
  Given that you are a piece up with a dominating position, exchanging the bishops isn't a problem at all. Note, that it is just an exchange, not a sacrifice.
  
  You could have played 19.Bc7 instead, in that case black has to react 19…Ra8 or he will lose even more material (for example 19…Rb7 20.Rxc8 Kd7 21. Rxf8 with three pieces for a rook, which is a bit much …).
  
  Concerning your weaknesses:
  
  Only 10.b4 strikes me as truly bad, blundering a pawn and misplacing your knight. And 15.Nc3 would have prevented your second pawn blunder.
  
  So you won this game because your opponent blunders pieces whereas you only blunder pawns. Stop blundering pawns and you'll start beating those players that blunder pawns. And then we'll talk about why 2…f6 is a bad move and how to punish it.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: very inforamative and yeah I found how bad is 2...f6 as there are sharp responds as 3.Nxe5 ? thank you  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2015-06-14. Score: 0
  
  18... Rb8 19.Bc7
  
  He cannot continue with 19... Rb7 (you will simply capture his bishop for free).
  
  Now if you play 20.Rad1 and follow with 21.R1d7+, he will be forced to capture your rook with his light bishop (otherwise you are going to soon capture both his queenside pawns for free), you would reply by taking his rook with your d8 rook and then destroy his two queen-side pawns. Your victory is then guaranteed!
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2017-09-20. Score: 0
  
  Here are my thoughts - sorry, thought you were playing black. Hopefully still of value to you.....
  
  2...f6 was indeed bad...resulting in Nxe5 followed by Queen incursion.
  
  4...dxe5 is bad, allowing queen trade and subsequent loss of castling privilege.
  Losing the right to castle while every other piece is still on board is bad.
  Queens alone being removed does not make it safe enough.
  Can you see how white's early castling "doubles down" on black's inability to
  castle - making that disadvantage stand out even more?
  
  6...Nh6 is also bad, inviting doubled pawns.
  Although the trading of pieces WOULD suit the black uncastled king.
  Is that bit of safety worth the doubled pawns? Is a question to try and answer.
  
  9...c6 is a lot of pawn moves so far and has weakened the dark squares around
  the black king - AND white still has his dark squared bishop.
  It appears as if 7...a6 was preparing for a later ...b5 (which WOULD
  give the black white-squared bishop the nice long diagonal) except that 8...b5 doesn't work
  here because of white's earlier 8. a4
  It looks like maybe black noticed this a little late and decided on 9...c6 instead. Yet this is the type of calculation to try before committing to moves.
  Black shouldn't have felt compelled to make another pawn move in the vicinity JUST because he suddenly realized that ...b5 wouldn't work.
  
  12...Nf7 just losses a piece outright. Black is now down a piece, therefore positional considerations like pawn structure or active/inactive piece are really not relevant for him now. Unless the lost piece provided an irresistible initiative that outweighed material, then positional considerations take a back seat to material and should not be considered on par with it. Once material balance is restored, positional factors regain their importance.
  
  As to your question:
  
  1. How should I handle such conditions where my opponent Is just attacking my
     attacking pieces?...Before putting your pieces into positions of attack, you should try to calculate whether your opponent can easily just chase them. If he can, perhaps a short term plan could involve a way to PREVENT him from easily chasing them?
  
  
  ---
  
  