Passive Exchange Sacrifices and Refusing to Take the Exchange

[Michael Mkpadi]

I am stunned at the recent number of elite players who without being forced give up the exchange then go down in flames. On the other hand I've seen sometimes the same players refusing to take the exchange when offered by other players, sometimes when the compensation and counterplay for their opponent isn't clear.

I don't want to name any names but I think examples of this phenomenon of incorrect exchange sacs offered or not taken is something that has been a confusing subject for me.

To illustrate my point consider the position below with black to play.

r4k1r/1pN2p1p/p3b3/8/8/6n1/P1PN2PP/4RBK1

Black played 1..Nxf1, passively sacrificing the rook on a8. Now the question is was that objectively best? I have no idea but the knee jerk move is to save the a8 rook. What if I told you black was no other than incredibly strong Bobby Fischer.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Well, 1...Nxf1 2.Rxf1 Ke7 3.Nxa8 Rxa8 just looks to me like it gives black a comfortable endgame advantage with a good bishop against a bad knight and a slightly better pawn structure. 1...Rd8 2.Nxe6+ fxe6 3.Bd3 Nf5 4.Rxe6 gives black a material advantage, but white's active pieces give him some compensation. It's not clear to me which is the better line, but 1...Nxf1 looks like the safer, less-likely-to-lose one.

[geoffgammon]

Black is the exchange up. If the knight on f1 is recaptured the percentage material advantage is increased. If white plays 2.Nxe6+ then 2..fxe6 3.Rxf1+ and the percentage material advantage is increased even more. If 2.Nxa8 then 2..Nxd2 putting black a piece up. I'd be interested to see the moves which led to this position.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Here is an interesting series on this subject.