Author: Mark Young
Date: 15:56:46 12/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 1998 at 14:33:47, Komputer Korner wrote: >On December 15, 1998 at 04:50:28, Harald Faber wrote: > >>On December 15, 1998 at 03:06:54, Laurence Chen wrote: >> >>>From the replies to the posting I read so far about this trick subject, it seems >>>that the majority of chessplayer think that real sacrifices are unsound and it >>>should not be played, and that because of this the chess engine does not play >>>it. >> >>To make a long story in a short answer: >>Sacs are hard to refuse OTB. That is the only reason some masters and GMs play >>some. They pull up some confusing struggle knowing that the opponent won't be >>able to save the game because of 2 aspects: 1) king safety/ under pressure >>(=psychology) and 2) time. Maybe the GM knows that the sac is unsound. He plays >>it becasue he knows there is only one defence and the opp won't find it. >>In corespondence chess you have to be much more carefully. >>The only programs playing risky sacs are the ones that have a sound eval for >>king safety and attacking potential, MCP, The King, WChess and CSTal come in >>mind for that case. MAYBE Junior5. Fritz won't play it unless it is sure to win >>material. :-) > >I have found over 150 real sacrifices in the openings that are unclear and could >be played in correspondence games. There are about 5 new ones a year. >The highest positional compensation for minor piece sacs is 2 pawns worth with >very few exceptions. I have written an article about this and was intending to >publish a book on it but couldn't find a publisher. Here is an classic "real sacrifice" in the opening that has since been refuted. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 dxc4 4. e4 e5 5. Bxc4 exd4 6. Nf3 .. . Anyone remember the winning line for black? >-- >Komputer Korner
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.