| Mar-26-04 | | morphynoman2: Why not 19... Rf6 in stead of the unsound 19... Bxf1?
Then 20. Qxg2 (20. Rf2?? Qh1) Rg6, and I think black has at least a draw. |
|
| Mar-27-04 | | akiba82: morphynoman2: after your suggestion White would still have rook and two bishops for the queen- too much. As in the game continuation, the two bishops decide. |
|
| Sep-21-04 | | clocked: 19...Bxf1 is sound. Black had many opportunites to keep the advantage or force a draw |
|
| Sep-21-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: <clocked> Could black have gotten away with 19. ...Rf6 in hopes of placing the rook on g6? White cant play 20.Rf2 because of 20. ...Qh1# If 20.e4 Rg6 21.exf5 Rg3 What can white do in response to 19. ...Rf6 ? |
|
| Sep-21-04 | | acirce: <What can white do in response to 19. ...Rf6 ?> Simply 20.Qxg2 Rg6 21.Qxg6 leads to approximate material equality but where White should be better because Black's remaining rook is out of play. |
|
| Sep-21-04 | | percyblakeney: My Fritz gives white a slight edge, valued less than half a pawn, after the 19. … Rf6 continuation. In any case 27. … Rd1+ ought to draw. |
|
| Apr-28-05 | | PizzatheHut: I clicked on a link that read 'Double Bishop Sacrifices' and was brought to this game. I wasn't expecting the sacrificer to lose! :) |
|
| Apr-28-05 | | mr. nice guy: <PizzatheHut> If the sacrificer lost does that mean that the sacrificee won? |
|
| Apr-28-05 | | Calli: Simply 27...Rd1+ 28.Kf2 Qd2+ looks like a perpetual to moi |
|
| Jun-30-05 | | lentil: i agree with calli |
|
| Jun-30-05 | | Granite: This is an excellent example of how two minor pieces - especially the bishop pair - are greater then a rook. looking at the position after 29. f4 black is up two pawns and white's king looks looser, but truth be told it's white with all the threats. The two bishops slice the entire board in half, his rook and queen are well placed and black's rook is akward on h5 - wouldn't it be great to smash the bishop on e5 with that bad rook and look for mate? Unfortunately, this exchange would mean black is now down a minor piece and this means he'd better have serious threats. Suddenly the threat of sacing the exchange and consolidating black's pawn advantage aren't there. From here the task comes to defense and we can see clearly how white was able to control the entire situation and attack black's king. I'm guessing Owen overestimated his chances and didn't look for an accurate defense. |
|
| Nov-26-05 | | Kwesi: What happens if 18...Bf3 ? |
|
| Nov-26-05 | | percyblakeney: <Kwesi> Good question, I think you've found a winning move there... |
|
| Nov-27-05 | | percyblakeney: Forster annotates this game in his book on Burn and mentions the similar and more famous Lasker vs J Bauer, 1889 but only gives 16. ... Bxh2+ a "!?" since he hasn't found 18. ... Bf3, which Shredder confirms is winning. If white takes the bishop he'll be mated soon after Qg5+ and Rf6, a move like Rd1 fails because of Rf6, and Be2 will be met by Bxg2. In the latter line f3 doesn't work because of Qg3. A possible continuation: 18. ... Bf3 19. Be2 Bxg2 20. f3 Qg3 21. Rf2 Bh3+ 22. Kh1 Qxf2 and black is winning. If white instead tries 20. Kxg2 in this line black plays Qg5+ and after 21. Kh1 Rf6 it will cost white too much material to prevent the mate. Shredder's choice after 18. ... Bf3 is to sacrifice the queen with 19. Qd1, after which it evaluates the position as more than 5 pawns up for black. |
|
Mar-01-06
 | | LIFE Master AJ: Hmmm, Black sacked the 2 B's ... but lost horribly. Am I missing something? |
|
| May-01-06 | | technical draw: Is AJ missing something?. Don't answer, it sounds like a trap. |
|
| Aug-31-06 | | Kwesi: 18...Bf3!! |
|
| Oct-02-06 | | syracrophy: After 19...♗xf1? 20.♗xf1  Black's already in disadvantage. White's pair of bishops and now that the white king can be protected give White the advantage.It's a pity that the one that played (for first time!) the double-bishop sacrifice missed the winning 18...♗f3!! <19.gxf3 ♕g5+ 20.♔h1 ♖f6! and curtain's down> |
|
| Feb-08-07 | | who: Well yes, but if had played the correct Bf3 it wouldn't be the what's normally meant by "the double bishop sac." |
|
| Jan-25-08 | | Gypsy: So, in the view of the stunnig 18...Bf3!!, it seems that White <16.bxc3?. was potentially loosing error. Had White played 16.Bxc4, the combo would probably not have worked. <... 16.Bxc4 Bxh2+ 17.Kxh2 Qh4+ 18.Kg1 Bf3 19.Bxe6+ Kh8 20.Bxf5...> and Bh3 should let the rest of air from the Black attack. (The 16.Bxc4 looks good also on positional grounds.) Btw, pitty that Owen did not notice the <18...Bf3!!>, OTB moves like that confirm chess immortality. |
|
Dec-30-10
 | | Phony Benoni: Miles would get it right, 101 years later, in E Dizdarevic vs Miles, 1985. After <13.Nxc4>:
click for larger view
The position is much the same as after 16.bxc4 in this game, and Miles got it right with 16...Bxh2+ 17.Kxh2 Qh4+ 18.Kg1 Bf3! |
|
May-07-21
 | | fredthebear: Edward Winter discusses this game in Chess Notes "11207. Double bishop sacrifice (C.N. 2673)": https://www.chesshistory.com/winter... |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 19.f3