Author: chandler yergin
Date: 20:22:34 03/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 27, 2005 at 14:13:44, Terry McCracken wrote: >On March 27, 2005 at 10:08:00, chandler yergin wrote: > >>On March 26, 2005 at 17:04:11, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>On March 26, 2005 at 16:08:12, Steve Maughan wrote: >>> >>>>Terry, >>>> >>>>>Nf5!..gf gf..Kh8 b6! followed by Rdg1 etc. +- >>>> >>>>1. Nf5 gxf5 2. gxf5 Kh8 3. b6 Na6 4. Rdg1 Rg8 (holds the bishop) 5. Nd5 Qd8 >>>> >>>>Also possible is: >>>> >>>>1. Nf5 gxf5 2. gxf5 Rd8 3. Rdg1 Ne8 >>> >>>You really don't know what you're talking about. >>>> >>>>In both lines white should win due to the pressure. I don't believe that >>>>Shredder 9 saw all of the tactics that fall out of this position within 2 secs - >>>>it played the move for positional reasons and is therefore a positional >>>>sacrifice (IMO). There may be a forced tactical line - this just means that it >>>>was a good positional sacrifice. >>>> >>>>OK let's leave it at that. >>>> >>>>Steve >>> >>>No, I'm a master are you? You don't listen you don't learn. >> >>Interesting... Are you a member of any Organized Chess Groups? >>Like we have the U.S.C.F here which keeps tabs on and ranks players. >>Do you play in Tournaments? >>You have to beat Masters over the Board before you can become a Master. >>Care to list a few you've beaten? >>Thanks.. > >Instead being a condecending jerk, why don't you inform us of what type of >sacrifice was employed, tactical or positional? > >There are three types really, Positional sac, Strategical sac, and Tactical sac. > >Thanks... It was a good Tactical move! If you get more than adequate compensation, it's not really a Sac!
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.