The Chess Exchange

The Chess Exchange - To Your Chess Success!

Skip to content

It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:19 am 






This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic 

  Print view

Author Message
 Offline
Pawn
 
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:21 am
Posts: 21
 Post subject: How much would you sacrifice to wake up the king?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:12 am 
How much would you sacrifice in the following (very theoretical) situation?

A sacrifice to force a king move and destroy the right to castle. Tactical and other positional repercussions are uncalculable so we are putting a value purely on stealing the right to castle.
:?:


My uneducated estimation is the equivalent of 2 pawns. Maybe knight takes pawn. King takes knight (losing castling rights), and (in our theoretical tactical vacuum) things are evenish.

Wadda ya reckon? :D

Cheers


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
User avatar  Offline
King
 
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:42 pm
Posts: 192
Location: London, UK
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:00 am 
I would be hesitant to sacrifice a knight for a pawn and an uncastled king unless I could see a very strong attack after the king takes knight. Though two pawns and the loss of the right to castle would probably be enough for me.


Top
 Profile  
 
User avatar  Offline
Site Admin
 
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:42 am
Posts: 1430
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
 Post subject: Re: How much would you sacrifice to wake up the king?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:26 am 
tdiedwards wrote:
How much would you sacrifice in the following (very theoretical) situation?

A sacrifice to force a king move and destroy the right to castle. Tactical and other positional repercussions are uncalculable so we are putting a value purely on stealing the right to castle.
:?:


My uneducated estimation is the equivalent of 2 pawns. Maybe knight takes pawn. King takes knight (losing castling rights), and (in our theoretical tactical vacuum) things are evenish.

Wadda ya reckon? :D

Cheers





An example is the Jerome gambit, but with two pawns for a bishop. As a surprise weapon it might work, but if you know how to counter it, white giving up quality is the main loser.

In the Cochrane gamit this happens also. Here black will lose its roght to castle and get a knight for two pawns. Generally it is considered that if countered correctly, white can't make up for the quality.

If you consider giving away a pawn in the opening worth three tempi, you could make a calculation of the win - but in your case you give up an active piece for a few tempi to bring the king in safety again. One move to play the rook, one to move to put the king back where it belongs for an artificial castling. That's losing one tempo and an winning active piece. It can't make up for a difference of two pawns.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Offline
Pawn
 
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:21 am
Posts: 21
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:39 am 
Thanks guys. Your ideas concur (sp?) with those expressed in another forum. ie. theoritically - castling rights are worth not more than a pawn

I'd like to look at those gambits mentioned though. I play quite a lot of speed chess and they look like openings that would munch valuable enemy seconds. :twisted:

cheers


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
User avatar  Offline
Rook
 
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:49 pm
Posts: 86
Location: Texas
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 1:23 pm 
Steinitz would say it's worth nothing - in fact, he gives up a pawn for the right not to castle:

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.d4 Qh4+ 5.Ke2

The first World Champion says the King is better placed here, being more centralized for the ending :)

What do we make of that?


Last edited by ChessCentral on Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
User avatar  Offline
Moderator
 
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:18 pm
Posts: 186
Location: The Nati
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:23 pm 
ChessCentral wrote:
Steinitz would say it's worth nothing - in fact, he gives up a pawn for the right not to castle:

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.d4 Qh4+ 5.Ke2

The first World Champion says the King is better placed here, being more centralized for the ending :)

What do we make of that?

I'm pretty sure Steinitz wasn't thinking ahead to the ending; he simply felt that the powerful center white produces is worth more than the inconvenience of the king in the center. As far as I've ever heard, Steinitz never implied that a king in the center in the opening was a good idea.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
User avatar  Offline
Rook
 
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:49 pm
Posts: 86
Location: Texas
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:19 pm 
Not so, young Paduan! Here's a Steinitz quote from the London 1883 Tournament Book:

"The main object of this Gambit is to make the King available for both wings in the ending. There is hardly any real danger for White in the present position, and he ought to obtain some advantage in consequence of his King being in the center, if he succeeds in exchanging Queens...".

Steinitz held that direct attempts to exploit White's King position "...will be more dangerous for the opponent than for himself." In particular, any such attack would leave behind pawn weaknesses or uncoordinated pieces to be targeted in the endgame.

Noting that previously the King was considered stronger than the Knight or Bishop in the endgame, Steinitz declared himself "...inclined to extend this valuation to all parts of the game...", and goes on to describe the King plus one nearby pawn as equal to an unsupported Rook.

Steinitz thought a lot about King Power. In his book, The Modern Chess Instructor, Steinitz wrote that "...it is specially as regards the powers of the King that the modern school deviates from the teaching and practice of old theorists....and we consider it established that the King must be treated as a strong piece both for attack and defense."

Steinitz Rules!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
User avatar  Offline
King
 
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:32 am
Posts: 182
Location: India
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:28 pm 
ChessCentral wrote:
Steinitz would say it's worth nothing - in fact, he gives up a pawn for the right not to castle:

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.d4 Qh4+ 5.Ke2

The first World Champion says the King is better placed here, being more centralized for the ending :)

What do we make of that?


LOL! :D :P 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
User avatar  Offline
King
 
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:32 am
Posts: 182
Location: India
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:29 pm 
BTW, what would you say about the Muzio gambit?

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.O-O gxf3 6.Qxf3 Qf6 7.e5 Qxe5 8.Bxf7 Kxf7 9.d4 Qxd4 10.Be3 :shock:
:!: :idea:


Top
 Profile  
 
User avatar  Offline
Rook
 
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:49 pm
Posts: 86
Location: Texas
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:48 pm 
kapilgain wrote:
BTW, what would you say about the Muzio gambit?

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.O-O gxf3 6.Qxf3 Qf6 7.e5 Qxe5 8.Bxf7 Kxf7 9.d4 Qxd4 10.Be3 :shock:
:!: :idea:


I would say it wins in blitz :)

Apparently 8.d3 is still the "main line" here, but the Bishop sac is well known to give a strong attack.

By the way, after the further 10...Qf6 White is supposed to play 11.Bxf4!. But it is interesting that 2 games exist with Morphy & Steinitz playing White which started with Queen's Knight odds, so that the first player's Rooks are already connected at this point. Exploiting that fact they continued 11.Qh5+ Qg6 12.Rxf4+ Nf6 13.Rxf6+ Kxf6 14.Bd4+ Ke7 15.Re1+ with a big-time attack.

Who says chess history is dull?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Offline
Pawn
 
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:42 am
Posts: 13
 Post subject: Re: How much would you sacrifice to wake up the king?
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:01 pm 
tdiedwards wrote:
How much would you sacrifice in the following (very theoretical) situation?

A sacrifice to force a king move and destroy the right to castle. Tactical and other positional repercussions are uncalculable so we are putting a value purely on stealing the right to castle.
:?:


My uneducated estimation is the equivalent of 2 pawns. Maybe knight takes pawn. King takes knight (losing castling rights), and (in our theoretical tactical vacuum) things are evenish.

Wadda ya reckon? :D

Cheers


In this day and age, I hesitate to sacrifice even a pawn.


Top
 Profile  
 
User avatar  Offline
King
 
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:32 am
Posts: 182
Location: India
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2006 9:42 am 
The Fried Liver Attack, in my opinion, involves a theoretically sound knight sacrifice to lure the Black king in the open.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7!? Kxf7

It is a very dangerous attack and more often than not Black falters in his defense. Defending for Black is an arduous task in this opening and it is probably because of this that Black himself plays a pawn sacrifice to avoid the Fried Liver Attack:-

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5 c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Bd6 11.f4 exf3 12.Nxf3 O-O {and Black is well-developed, White has a pawn for compensation.}

Here's a beautiful skittle game played by the legendary Paul Morphy which demonstrates the power of the Fried Liver Attack and also illustrates how much one can sacrifice to finish off the game in style (Take a look at the move that Morphy used to checkmate his opponent). His opponent was a club player and Morphy decided to give him a rook start, so the starting
position of the game is:

Image

[White "Paul Morphy"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/1NBQKBNR w Kkq - 0 1"]
[SetUp "1"]

{--------------
r n b q k b n r
p p p p p p p p
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
P P P P P P P P
. N B Q K B N R
white to play
--------------}

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Qf3+
Ke6 8. Nc3 Nd4 9. Bxd5+ Kd6 10. Qf7 Be6 11. Bxe6 Nxe6 12. Ne4+ Kd5 13. c4+
Kxe4 14. Qxe6 Qd4 15. Qg4+ Kd3 16. Qe2+ Kc2 17. d3+ Kxc1 18. O-O#
{White Mates} 1-0


Top
 Profile  
 
 Offline
Knight
 
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:19 am
Posts: 47
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:35 am 
What i mostly do, (given the chance) is queen takes queen, and king is forced to take queen, so i "gained" his noncastling rights ^^.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Offline
King
 
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:09 pm
Posts: 148
Location: Placentia, CA
 Post subject: Re: How much would you sacrifice to wake up the king?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:45 pm 
tdiedwards wrote:
How much would you sacrifice in the following (very theoretical) situation?

A sacrifice to force a king move and destroy the right to castle. Tactical and other positional repercussions are uncalculable so we are putting a value purely on stealing the right to castle.
:?:


My uneducated estimation is the equivalent of 2 pawns. Maybe knight takes pawn. King takes knight (losing castling rights), and (in our theoretical tactical vacuum) things are evenish.

Wadda ya reckon? :D


I'll almost always sac one pawn to keep my opponent from castling. I think keeping one's opponent from castling is virtually never worth two pawns unless there is also a lead in development present.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Offline
Newbie
 
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:21 pm
Posts: 1
 Post subject: Sacrificing to keep the king from castling
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:45 pm 
You can't really generalize about this issue. There are many opening lines where one side or the other doesn't castle (e.g., Black in several lines of the Sicilian) or gives up the right to castle and it's no big deal or in fact the king is safest in the middle. But there are also lots of positions where a king stuck in the middle is a recipe for big trouble and sacrifices of a pawn or two, or much more, are appropriate. It just depends!

The same variety of outcomes occurs with moving pawns in front of the castled king, or on the side where the king winds up castling. Sometimes it's a great idea, and sometimes it's a terrible idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 193 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:40 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest





cron

ChessCentral - The Leader in Cutting-Edge Chess * Buy Fritz 12 * Buy Rybka 4 * Buy Fritz Powerbook DVD


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group

Style based on Andreas08 by Andreas Viklund and created by Elizabeth Shulman, Stop Animal Rights, Dog Training by corgipower