Answers.Body: <p>The sacrifice makes very little sense here. A weakness is only a weakness if it can be exploited, and in this case white won't really have anything substantial to go on after giving up the bishop. But why can I be so certain that white won't have any good follow-ups, even if I don't consider all possibilities? What aspects of the position make it clear to me that white will not be able to exploit black's &quot;vulnerable&quot; king?</p>
  <p>If we look a bit more concretely at the position after Bxh6, gxh6, what do we find? We find an entire army of black pieces, all of them ready to leap into the defense of their king! In particular, the knight on f6 and the bishop on g6 are at least as good as a pair of pawns when it comes to shielding black's king from direct attacks, so it doesn't really matter that black's pawn cover isn't that great. Also worth noting is the rook on f8, which can be placed on f7, providing even more defense for black's king.</p>
  <p>While it's good that you're aware of the fact that one always has to be careful with allowing this kind of sacrifice around one's own king, this needs to be tempered somewhat. Ask yourself questions like &quot;how will my opponent follow up their sacrifice?&quot;, &quot;can the opponent easily open up lines of attack against my king?&quot;, &quot;do I have enough defenders around my king?&quot; etc. and you will find it a lot easier to correctly judge whether a piece sacrifice with the goal of initiating a king assault is likely to succeed.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-11-02T06:07:56.300Z
Answers.Text: I was never concerned about an immediate follow-up, but considering that black would need to continue using those pieces to protect their king, I can't help but feel their attack would be compromised, and they would have trouble using their pieces productively. Wouldn't black's knight and bishop would be out of commission for a chunk of the game? And when they do finally go into play, there is no real defense for the king, which is trouble for when white's queen and rooks are hypothetically in play too. So for sacrificing white's bishop, you are breaking the integrity of black's position.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mitchell Graham
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-11-02T09:54:03.350Z
Answers.Text: @MitchellGraham protect against what? the single pawn remaining still defends against your H3 knight, which is completely stuck, meaning your white bishop is almost completely blocked as well. your rooks are blocked by your own pawns; a frontal assault is completly off the table in this position. any attack you have will come from the side, which your opponent has covered. the knight and bishop can move freely. the only frontal attack you have is a pawn storm, and if you are going to do that, why not sac a pawn instead of a bishop?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jumboman
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-11-02T13:38:12.467Z
Answers.Text: @MitchellGraham Black's pieces only need to defend black's king if white tries to attack it, otherwise they can move freely. So while it's probably a good idea to keep some pieces close to the black king, they're not chained to specific squares. This applies especially to long range pieces like bishops/rooks/queens. It feels like you're trying to make broad and general statements without even bothering to back them up with anything concrete. This is no way to evaluate a chess position. you have to treat the position in front of you, not some spectre in the distance that you can't make out.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-11-02T18:14:19.117Z
Answers.Text: @Scounged "This is no way to evaluate a chess position. you have to treat the position in front of you, not some spectre in the distance that you can't make out." - Right, but you can't just ignore what's 3 or 5 or 8 moves away either. So then, how far into the distance *do* you look to evaluate a position?
Answers.UserDisplayName: TCooper
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-11-02T19:42:07.400Z
Answers.Text: @Scounged I'm sorry but I disagree with you. Who are you to assume that I'm making broad statements without any reasoning? If you think there's something wrong with my reasoning then why not contribute to the discussion rather than by responding with an insult. Thank you.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mitchell Graham
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-11-03T00:39:46.603Z
Answers.Text: @MitchellGraham I'm not saying that you don't have any reasoning. I'm saying that you're not using any concrete lines to motivate it. That's an important distinction. The problem with the way you reason is that when you evaluate a chess position you can't just make some vague statements about king safety without concretely specifying why black's king is potentially unsafe. What concrete plans does white have to attack the black king? In this case you said something vague about white's queen and rook coming into play without giving a concrete way for them to do so.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-11-03T00:48:11.420Z
Answers.Text: @TCooper Of course you can't ignore that. But a concrete position 3, 5 or even 8 moves down the line is way different from a "ghost" position that nobody has given any reason as to why it's even remotely likely to come up on the board. Of course it's impossible to give any hard rules for how far one has to look, but the fact remains that one has to ground their reasoning in the concrete positions and plans that they see.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-11-03T13:08:10.833Z
Answers.Text: @Scounged especially considering this is positional play, looking at some various tactics a few moves ahead is sort of ignoring my point. Just because it isn't "concrete" as you put it doesn't mean that the move is invalid, I'm not trying to prove or disprove whether or not the tactic will "work." If you look at the bigger picture then you will see that it is a big vulnerability in black's defenses, and that in the long term it could be a big problem for them to work against. Chess goes beyond tactics.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mitchell Graham
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-11-03T13:18:36.103Z
Answers.Text: You also seem to be equating "reasoning" with "tactics," whereas I see tactics as a tool for reasoning.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mitchell Graham
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-11-03T14:55:42.453Z
Answers.Text: @MitchellGraham Based on what you're writing, I just have to ask outright: what is your Elo rating? And secondly, are you interested in understanding my perspective or are you more interested in confirming your bias? Positional play is often just as concrete as tactical play. You are aware of this, right? As an example, king safety depends on the position on the board in front of you, not on the abstract notion of pawn cover. A king with a solid pawn cover can be in real danger, and a king without any pawns in front of it can be completely safe. It all depends on the concrete position.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-11-03T16:02:05.307Z
Answers.Text: If you think your perspective is worth elaborating on then please elaborate. That is, if you want me to "confirm your bias" instead. I am waiting eagerly.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mitchell Graham
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-11-03T16:22:47.150Z
Answers.Text: Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/131116/discussion-between-scounged-and-mitchell-graham).
Answers.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-11-02T03:11:45.703Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-11-03T14:41:17.420Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-11-03T14:41:17.420Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Answers.Body: <p>This won't work. When you make aggressive piece sacrifices like this to expose the enemy king, you need to be able to follow up. In this case the obvious follow-up moves are Ng5 and Qh5, but both g5 and h5 are protected by Black's pieces. You could try f4, but it's slow - Black is not obliged to capture and after [pass] 2. f5 Bf7 you are once again out of attacking ideas.</p>
  <p>For such an attack to work you need more firepower. For example, if you had the queen on d2 such that you can meet 1...gxh6 with 2. Qxh6, the sacrifice might work. Or maybe if somehow managed to trade light-squared bishops (trading one of your inactive pieces for an important defender of the opponent), and had the king on h1 with rooks on f1 and g1. As it is, Black's king simply has too many loyal bodyguards for your few attackers to break through.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-11-02T05:44:47.377Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-11-02T05:44:47.377Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Allure
Answers.Body: <blockquote>
  <p>black's king would be totally exposed if white's bishop decided to take the pawn</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>Having little pawn cover and being &quot;exposed&quot; are completely different things. Black has five pieces available for the defense of their king, while White has only four pieces available to attack. One of those pieces is the bishop whose sacrifice you're evaluating, one of them is the fianchettoed bishop that, thanks to White's e pawn, has been deprived of the long diagonal and will take awhile to get into the action, one is a knight that has no available moves, and one is a queen, and while queens are more powerful than the other pieces, they're also much less disposable. With White's dark-squared bishop gone, taking out the h-pawn is going to be far from trivial.</p>
  <p>While the sacrifice will result in two half-open files next to Black's kings, they're half-open on Black's side. That is, at least in the short run, removing the g pawn simply clears the file for Black's rooks! There's no way White's getting their rooks in a position to take advantage of the files (especially the g file) without a huge amount of work, and the h and e pawns are going to be major impediments to any pawn storm. If White can trade their bishop for the g <em>and</em> h pawns and have their g and h pawns be passed, that would be much more of concern.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-11-02T04:56:24.333Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-11-02T04:56:24.333Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Acccumulation
Answers.Body: <p>If I am white, the sac I am looking at is f4 !? Idea of possibly a recapture on g5 with the knight, threatening the fork and eyeing h7. Also f5 may be interesting, but it is hard for black to really do much about the f4 break so it is probably best to just retreat the bishop with f4 coming. Another good rule of thumb is to not make a speculative sacrifice when a simpler strategy will suffice. I could be wrong, but I think white is in good shape here, and my suggestion is mainly not worth it because the f4 break delayed is almost as strong so might as well have a bishop for the attack.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-11-02T23:16:35.470Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-11-03T14:43:53.660Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-11-03T14:43:53.660Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: potmo
Body: <p>I (black) reached this position in a game and realised that black's king would be totally exposed if white's bishop decided to take the pawn (1. Bxh6 gxh6).</p>
  <p>Is the smart move here for white to sacrifice their bishop and to expose the opponent's king? Or since you can't see that far into the future, maybe it's just worth keeping your piece. What do you think?</p>
  <pre><code>[FEN &quot;r2q1rk1/pp2b1p1/3p1nbp/1Np1p1B1/1nP1P3/6PN/PP2QPBP/R4RK1 w Qq - 0 1&quot;]
  
  1.Bxh6 gxh6
  </code></pre>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-01T23:56:20.040Z
Comments.Text: If the white queen was on e3, so you could capture both pawns for the loss of the bishop, it might be worth it. But there's not really a follow up attack, is there?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Steve Bennett
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-02T03:27:51.573Z
Comments.Text: @SteveBennett I think the sac still fails due to the zwichenzug ...Ng4 if white's queen were on e3. But then again, all of this is purely hypothetical.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-02T07:55:21.653Z
Comments.Text: As a kid in one of my first tournaments I lost a game in which I sacrificed a piece against my opponent's long castled king, and a spectator told me afterwards "*first* get all your pieces involved, *then* sacrifice." Here your rooks, Nb5, Bg2 are all far away (and even Nh3 and Qe2 have no way to get closer to the king) so you haven't even started getting pieces involved in an attack, you're just giving away a piece.
Comments.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-02T12:40:23.457Z
Comments.Text: chess.com says that this move changes position from equal to -4. The suggested move is simply capturing the knight.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Zizy Archer
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-02T18:56:49.050Z
Comments.Text: I think I would have captured the knight in this position. Anyway, chess engines can't predict how a game will turn out, since human play is completely chaotic as far as a computer is concerned. So if it did end up costing black, then the computer wouldn't know about it. The computer just sees the best moves it can make according to a metric. Yes this is a current game but the game went a different direction before I saw this and decided to share it.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Mitchell Graham
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-02T18:58:54.173Z
Comments.Text: I'd argue that not only is not ideal, it's one of white's worst (of the at least reasonable, not i.e. Qc2 or Nc7) moves from this position. I guess whether it's reasonable is what is being debated here; I would say it is reasonable, but still a mistake.
Comments.UserDisplayName: TCooper
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-02T19:39:17.443Z
Comments.Text: No, I simply saw it since I'm playing black, I thought if white had captured my pawn there that I would have been in trouble. I tried looking it from white's point of view since they ended up retreating the bishop, which I would have probably done myself, but I can't help but think how that move would work out for white since it seemed like they made a mistake by retreating it. Obviously I agree that the pragmatic move is to retreat, but if you are playing at full capacity then maybe jeopardising black's structure in such a way would be beneficial.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Mitchell Graham
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-04T18:16:36.927Z
Comments.Text: The king is not exposed just because a pawn is missing.  Look at all the friends he has around him!
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ywapom
Tags: <positional-play><sacrifice>
Title: In this game, should white sacrifice their bishop to expose black's king?
ThreadText: # In this game, should white sacrifice their bishop to expose black's king?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2021-11-01)
  
  I (black) reached this position in a game and realised that black's king would be totally exposed if white's bishop decided to take the pawn (1. Bxh6 gxh6).
  
  Is the smart move here for white to sacrifice their bishop and to expose the opponent's king? Or since you can't see that far into the future, maybe it's just worth keeping your piece. What do you think?
  
  ```
  [FEN "r2q1rk1/pp2b1p1/3p1nbp/1Np1p1B1/1nP1P3/6PN/PP2QPBP/R4RK1 w Qq - 0 1"]
  
  1.Bxh6 gxh6
  
  ```
  
  **Tags:** positional-play, sacrifice
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: If the white queen was on e3, so you could capture both pawns for the loss of the bishop, it might be worth it. But there's not really a follow up attack, is there?  
  > **username_2**: @username_1 I think the sac still fails due to the zwichenzug ...Ng4 if white's queen were on e3. But then again, all of this is purely hypothetical.  
  > **username_3**: As a kid in one of my first tournaments I lost a game in which I sacrificed a piece against my opponent's long castled king, and a spectator told me afterwards "*first* get all your pieces involved, *then* sacrifice." Here your rooks, Nb5, Bg2 are all far away (and even Nh3 and Qe2 have no way to get closer to the king) so you haven't even started getting pieces involved in an attack, you're just giving away a piece.  
  > **username_4**: chess.com says that this move changes position from equal to -4. The suggested move is simply capturing the knight.  
  > **username_0**: I think I would have captured the knight in this position. Anyway, chess engines can't predict how a game will turn out, since human play is completely chaotic as far as a computer is concerned. So if it did end up costing black, then the computer wouldn't know about it. The computer just sees the best moves it can make according to a metric. Yes this is a current game but the game went a different direction before I saw this and decided to share it.  
  > **username_5**: I'd argue that not only is not ideal, it's one of white's worst (of the at least reasonable, not i.e. Qc2 or Nc7) moves from this position. I guess whether it's reasonable is what is being debated here; I would say it is reasonable, but still a mistake.  
  > **username_0**: No, I simply saw it since I'm playing black, I thought if white had captured my pawn there that I would have been in trouble. I tried looking it from white's point of view since they ended up retreating the bishop, which I would have probably done myself, but I can't help but think how that move would work out for white since it seemed like they made a mistake by retreating it. Obviously I agree that the pragmatic move is to retreat, but if you are playing at full capacity then maybe jeopardising black's structure in such a way would be beneficial.  
  > **username_6**: The king is not exposed just because a pawn is missing.  Look at all the friends he has around him!  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2021-11-02. Score: 17
  
  The sacrifice makes very little sense here. A weakness is only a weakness if it can be exploited, and in this case white won't really have anything substantial to go on after giving up the bishop. But why can I be so certain that white won't have any good follow-ups, even if I don't consider all possibilities? What aspects of the position make it clear to me that white will not be able to exploit black's "vulnerable" king?
  
  If we look a bit more concretely at the position after Bxh6, gxh6, what do we find? We find an entire army of black pieces, all of them ready to leap into the defense of their king! In particular, the knight on f6 and the bishop on g6 are at least as good as a pair of pawns when it comes to shielding black's king from direct attacks, so it doesn't really matter that black's pawn cover isn't that great. Also worth noting is the rook on f8, which can be placed on f7, providing even more defense for black's king.
  
  While it's good that you're aware of the fact that one always has to be careful with allowing this kind of sacrifice around one's own king, this needs to be tempered somewhat. Ask yourself questions like "how will my opponent follow up their sacrifice?", "can the opponent easily open up lines of attack against my king?", "do I have enough defenders around my king?" etc. and you will find it a lot easier to correctly judge whether a piece sacrifice with the goal of initiating a king assault is likely to succeed.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: I was never concerned about an immediate follow-up, but considering that black would need to continue using those pieces to protect their king, I can't help but feel their attack would be compromised, and they would have trouble using their pieces productively. Wouldn't black's knight and bishop would be out of commission for a chunk of the game? And when they do finally go into play, there is no real defense for the king, which is trouble for when white's queen and rooks are hypothetically in play too. So for sacrificing white's bishop, you are breaking the integrity of black's position.  
  > **username_7**: @username_0 protect against what? the single pawn remaining still defends against your H3 knight, which is completely stuck, meaning your white bishop is almost completely blocked as well. your rooks are blocked by your own pawns; a frontal assault is completly off the table in this position. any attack you have will come from the side, which your opponent has covered. the knight and bishop can move freely. the only frontal attack you have is a pawn storm, and if you are going to do that, why not sac a pawn instead of a bishop?  
  > **username_2**: @username_0 Black's pieces only need to defend black's king if white tries to attack it, otherwise they can move freely. So while it's probably a good idea to keep some pieces close to the black king, they're not chained to specific squares. This applies especially to long range pieces like bishops/rooks/queens. It feels like you're trying to make broad and general statements without even bothering to back them up with anything concrete. This is no way to evaluate a chess position. you have to treat the position in front of you, not some spectre in the distance that you can't make out.  
  > **username_5**: @username_2 "This is no way to evaluate a chess position. you have to treat the position in front of you, not some spectre in the distance that you can't make out." - Right, but you can't just ignore what's 3 or 5 or 8 moves away either. So then, how far into the distance *do* you look to evaluate a position?  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 I'm sorry but I disagree with you. Who are you to assume that I'm making broad statements without any reasoning? If you think there's something wrong with my reasoning then why not contribute to the discussion rather than by responding with an insult. Thank you.  
  > **username_2**: @username_0 I'm not saying that you don't have any reasoning. I'm saying that you're not using any concrete lines to motivate it. That's an important distinction. The problem with the way you reason is that when you evaluate a chess position you can't just make some vague statements about king safety without concretely specifying why black's king is potentially unsafe. What concrete plans does white have to attack the black king? In this case you said something vague about white's queen and rook coming into play without giving a concrete way for them to do so.  
  > **username_2**: @username_5 Of course you can't ignore that. But a concrete position 3, 5 or even 8 moves down the line is way different from a "ghost" position that nobody has given any reason as to why it's even remotely likely to come up on the board. Of course it's impossible to give any hard rules for how far one has to look, but the fact remains that one has to ground their reasoning in the concrete positions and plans that they see.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 especially considering this is positional play, looking at some various tactics a few moves ahead is sort of ignoring my point. Just because it isn't "concrete" as you put it doesn't mean that the move is invalid, I'm not trying to prove or disprove whether or not the tactic will "work." If you look at the bigger picture then you will see that it is a big vulnerability in black's defenses, and that in the long term it could be a big problem for them to work against. Chess goes beyond tactics.  
  > **username_0**: You also seem to be equating "reasoning" with "tactics," whereas I see tactics as a tool for reasoning.  
  > **username_2**: @username_0 Based on what you're writing, I just have to ask outright: what is your Elo rating? And secondly, are you interested in understanding my perspective or are you more interested in confirming your bias? Positional play is often just as concrete as tactical play. You are aware of this, right? As an example, king safety depends on the position on the board in front of you, not on the abstract notion of pawn cover. A king with a solid pawn cover can be in real danger, and a king without any pawns in front of it can be completely safe. It all depends on the concrete position.  
  > **username_0**: If you think your perspective is worth elaborating on then please elaborate. That is, if you want me to "confirm your bias" instead. I am waiting eagerly.  
  > **username_2**: Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/131116/discussion-between-username_2-and-username_0).  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2021-11-02. Score: 5
  
  This won't work. When you make aggressive piece sacrifices like this to expose the enemy king, you need to be able to follow up. In this case the obvious follow-up moves are Ng5 and Qh5, but both g5 and h5 are protected by Black's pieces. You could try f4, but it's slow - Black is not obliged to capture and after [pass] 2. f5 Bf7 you are once again out of attacking ideas.
  
  For such an attack to work you need more firepower. For example, if you had the queen on d2 such that you can meet 1...gxh6 with 2. Qxh6, the sacrifice might work. Or maybe if somehow managed to trade light-squared bishops (trading one of your inactive pieces for an important defender of the opponent), and had the king on h1 with rooks on f1 and g1. As it is, Black's king simply has too many loyal bodyguards for your few attackers to break through.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2021-11-02. Score: 4
  
  > black's king would be totally exposed if white's bishop decided to take the pawn
  
  Having little pawn cover and being "exposed" are completely different things. Black has five pieces available for the defense of their king, while White has only four pieces available to attack. One of those pieces is the bishop whose sacrifice you're evaluating, one of them is the fianchettoed bishop that, thanks to White's e pawn, has been deprived of the long diagonal and will take awhile to get into the action, one is a knight that has no available moves, and one is a queen, and while queens are more powerful than the other pieces, they're also much less disposable. With White's dark-squared bishop gone, taking out the h-pawn is going to be far from trivial.
  
  While the sacrifice will result in two half-open files next to Black's kings, they're half-open on Black's side. That is, at least in the short run, removing the g pawn simply clears the file for Black's rooks! There's no way White's getting their rooks in a position to take advantage of the files (especially the g file) without a huge amount of work, and the h and e pawns are going to be major impediments to any pawn storm. If White can trade their bishop for the g *and* h pawns and have their g and h pawns be passed, that would be much more of concern.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_10 on 2021-11-02. Score: 0
  
  If I am white, the sac I am looking at is f4 !? Idea of possibly a recapture on g5 with the knight, threatening the fork and eyeing h7. Also f5 may be interesting, but it is hard for black to really do much about the f4 break so it is probably best to just retreat the bishop with f4 coming. Another good rule of thumb is to not make a speculative sacrifice when a simpler strategy will suffice. I could be wrong, but I think white is in good shape here, and my suggestion is mainly not worth it because the f4 break delayed is almost as strong so might as well have a bishop for the attack.
  
  
  ---
  
  