Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 20:17:29 10/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
[snip] > >my webster's defines 'sacrifice' as 'voluntarily giving up something of >value'. I have a hard time saying 'I will sacrifice a ten-dollar bill if >you will give me a 20 dollar bill in return...' > >:) Ok, you got me. I neglected to explicitly state I was refering to the _chess_ version of the term. > >But I don't object to the term being used.. I just think that for a computer, >the concept 'sacrifice' is wrong. It is just a perfectly computable >combinational tree search... You can give up a bishop to obtain a draw by perpetual check and because you never get the material back, it is a called a sacrifice. I know it seems trivial and is not what people generally have in mind when they use the term "sacrifice", but I do believe it's use in such cases is fairly universal. In discussions about the term, people seem to want to reserve the term to describe the giving up of material for "uncertain" compensation. The "romantic" view on sacrifices. But then in the next minute they will apply the term to the case I describe above. The common thread is: it is a sac if it voluntarily gives up material which you don't get back or do not get back in an obvious way. So a sac can be short term and quite calculable. As for sac'ing to obtain mate, it is semantically arguable that you are getting your material back and therefore it is not a true sac, but I don't see that as natural or useful. In common _chess_ usage, it is called a sac and is practically speaking consistent, when you consider its use to describe giving up material to obtain a draw. > >Bob > > > > >>> >>>But I like the term 'combination' here... and usually use the term sacrifice >>>as in 'sacrificing the exchange'... after the rxc3 bxc3 type sac in many >>>Sicilian variations, black is 2 pawns (the exchange) down, yet gets lots >>>of compensation for that material, hopefully... Or in sacrificing a pawn >>>(such as playing a4-a3 to force your opponent to play bxa3 and end up with >>>three isolated pawns that you hope you can eventually win, and which you >>>_know_ can not be used to create a passed pawn... >>> >>>Mainly semantics... But if we call this a sacrifice, then I see one of these >>>every 2 games or so... IE QxR RxQ BxR, because after QxR RxQ I am definitely >>>down 4 pawns, but after the third move I am up a pawn... >>> >>>Bob >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>>Larry - the chess software addict!
This page took 0.02 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.