"Castling is for sissies ...!" (Series 2)
So, for those of you who know SOMETHING about chess beyond the most basic moves, you probably know what castling is, that it's generally a very good idea, and that you're probably setting yourself up to lose if you DON'T do it.
On the other hand, if you've done a reasonably good job of developing your pieces, it is possible to play reasonably well without it, and you can actually set up more experienced people for traps if you don't.
In this particular game I'm playing black, and my opponent opens up by playing D4, which means he's moving the pawn in front of his queen 2 spaces forward.
I'm trying to get something called the Englund Soller gambit going.
But to do that, my opponent has to take my pawn. And he doesn't.
He just keeps going forward.
I bring out my knight, ostensibly to attack that pawn, so he backs that target pawn up with another pawn. It's already covered by his queen, though.
Maybe he just likes forming shapes; he's soon got a triangle there in the middle of the board.
At any rate, my knight is quickly hanging, ready to be blasted by his queen by diagonal attack, but I ignore that fact until after I've harassed his King with my bishop and traded pieces.
I protect my knight by opening a gun port for my remaining light square bishop.
If he takes that knight with his queen, she's a goner.
He declines, blocks an early mate attempt I try to set up with my own knight and queen, and then castles ...
"Castling is for sissies!" (continued)
After my opponent has castled, I decide to go after what looks like a free bishop.
It's quite obvious that I'm going for the unprotected piece; he moves it away.
Then he goes after my knight.
Understandably so, I already tried what would have been a game-ending play with it just a few moves prior.
My opponent's got decent development at this point, meaning many pieces are active and can move freely. He's also got a good symmetric looking pattern that seems reasonably well-defended. Notice how the knights are defending one another, for instance, and, if you know their move set, how much area they actually cover in conjunction with his web of pawns and his queen.
He's got central control; any piece trying to break that triangle of pawns dies. He's also higher ranked than I am and I'm on the clock; I'm not likely to win if I play conventionally.
On the other hand, my queen is already out there ...
I decide to let my knight just sit there, and simply move my rook's pawn up to "avenge" my knight if he gets taken. (Scan #2)
Be sure of it, this move is NOT sound under ordinary conditions -- the knight is worth roughly 3 times the value of the pawn that would be taking him.
And take him he does. So "avenge" him I do.
However, I'm losing now in terms of points and material.
Doesn't matter.
The threat is not my pawn continuing on and taking his knight, which SEEMS the most obvious thing to react to.
No, the problem, which he's just discovered, is that by taking my knight, he's just sacrificed a "wall" of his castle. Because I myself did not castle, and his pawn switched "lanes" of a matter of course in taking my knight, my king's rook now effectively owns that edge of the board. At least if he can get one ally.
And he can. My queen.
The knight is lost, and if he does not move quickly, so is my opponent's king and the game. Proof my opponent knows this is that he does not make any move to save the knight but instead creates an "escape hatch" for his King by moving the pawn at f2 forward ...
"Castling is for sissies!" (continued)
... yet he still has an answer for my bishop "X-ray" of his King and Queen, blocking the attempt with his knight. His central control and development still thwart most attempts on his King, for that matter. Meanwhile, the slight tempo advantage of being white means that, though I deliberately opted against castling king side earlier, I don't really have the time to press advantage AND castle QUEENside, which seems now like it would have been a VERY nice thing to have protecting me right now. In very short order, MY king is under attack and forced to flee ...
"Castling is for sissies!" (continued)
My shenanigans and positioning give me JUST enough tempo to thwart a reversal. The pawn at e5 permits my queen to give check from c3, safe from his own queen, and likewise prevents his King from escaping Southward into my lands. He's forced to move up where my imperiled rook can bring him up into what is now an inescapable mating net; regardless of what he does the game will end with my Queen checkmating a King eventually forced to d1, so he resigns.
Problem from ChessTempo dot com, an excellent site, no registration currently required, for practicing tactics. In this particular problem, if you're wondering:
"Why wouldn't he just take the queen in return?" it's because his King would be caught in a mating net in return. Check would be given by the rook going to the back rank. If the rook that just took the queen tried to return and block the attack, he'd just get taken and the King would still need to flee.
And once he did, he'd be mated by the black pawn at a4 moving to a3.
