One of the effects of studying masters game is that you tend to get influenced by what you see. I remember a time when I was studying Botvinnik games and I found myself wanting to ground opponents in the endgame. Never mind that I don't study the endgame, or do I know anything about stuff like lucena or phillidor. Lucena and Phillidor can be types of strawbery cakes for all I care.

Anyway, so I bought the "How to become a deadly chess tactician" book right, and I had been going through the games right. The effect is I found myself wanting to sacrifice pawns and pieces. Sound or unsound it does not matter, just as long as I am able to sacrifice something somewhere.

Take this recent game for example

I offered a knight just so I can blast his kingside open and he declined, handing me the advantage of the exchange instead. The shock value of sacrifices are really something I guess. But, I don't actually know if the sacrifice was worth it. I only knew that I was willing to give up the piece for a chance of an attack - and torpedoes be damned.

So now I'm Nezha "The Bold" - Ha!

But after I committed to sacrificing that knight and saw him decline - I couldn't get myself to sacrifice it "again" for two pawns and a shattered kingside. Its ironic because I was willing to sacrifice a whole piece for just the chance of an attack, and here I am being given the chance to get an attack and two pawns. But I got cold feet, and made the positional move 17. Nf7 electing instead to use the outpost technique.

Spielman said that given 2-pawns and an attack for a piece, "He who does not boldly try to win such a position, will never get far in the field of sacrificial play". So on one hand I'm like "Oooh, I tried to sacrifice a piece - I'm a regular Tal" and on the other hand I'm like "Ah chicken, using positional play instead of launching an attack"

So now the title of the post is "Nezha The bold!?" instead of "Nezha The Bold!!" =<