Author: Howard Exner
Date: 14:32:27 10/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
Here are two respected authors interpretation of sacrifices vs combinations.
1. From I.Z. Bondarevsky in "Combinations in the Middlegame"
Once we have examined the various sorts of combinations we must devote
particular consideration to yet an-other important middlegame question. This
chapter will deal with sacrifices. Here the reader might well ask what sort of
sacrifices we have in mind, in view of the fact that sacrifices have entered
into every example in the book so far.
However a separate section on sacrifices is fully justified. The point is that
in combinations the sacrifices are always accompanied by forced maneuvers as a
result of which the active side gains an objective advantage. Hence the
sacrifice was not a sacrifice in the full sense of the word. However, in
practical play we often meet with positions in which a player goes in for a
sacrifice without being able to calculate all its consequences.
About thirty years ago one of the leading Grandmasters of his time,
Rudolf Spielmann, a keen combinative player, wrote a book called The Art of
Sacrifice in Chess. In this book the author dealt with many of the problems
connected with sacrifices on the basis of his wide personal experience.
Spielmann called the sacrifices we are going to analyze real sacrifices,
emphasizing that they are not of a temporary nature susceptible to accurate
analysis. I cannot agree with Spielmann's classification of sacrifices as he
liquidates, in effect, a concept of sacrifice which has become firmly
established in chess literature all over the world, although it must be admitted
that this concept needs to be more refined.
Rubinstein vs Spielmann
5rk1/1p3rpp/2bpp3/p1q5/1PP1P3/P1QR2P1/6BP/4R2K b - - bm Bxe4;
Hence, as Black could not calculate all the consequences of his sacrifice we
cannot say that Black has entered on a combination. We encounter, from the point
of view of principle, a new phenomenon. There is no accurate calculation, no
forced maneuver accompanying the sacrifice, winning back material or leading to
mate. Hence it follows that there is no combination according to our
understanding of the term. There is only a sacrifice which leads in various
forced variations to positions which Spielmann assessed as being in his favor
despite his material deficit since the White king is forced into perilous
situations. Hence, we repeat, a sacrifice as opposed to a combination is based
not on exact calculation but on assessment of the positions to which it leads.
One must stress that it is a question here not of the static assessment of a
normal position with material equality, but of the assessment of possibilities
in a position where the material balance has been disturbed. I call such an
assessment a dynamic assessment.
Smyslov vs Kotov
3r1r2/pp1q2bk/2n1nppp/2p5/3pP1P1/P2P1NNQ/1PPB3P/1R3R1K w - - bm Nf5;
Smyslov wrote about his first move "A typical piece sacrifice in such positions.
Its special feature in this case is White's attempt not to win back the
sacrificed material but to get an attack by systematically increasing pressure.
There is no necessity here to calculate concrete variations but l rely upon a
general assessment of the position.
2. from Mark Dvoretsky in "Secrets of chess Tactics" p116.
The word 'sacrifice' is used in chess literature with two different meanings.
First of all, this is a move which gives up material. A sacrifice in this sense
of the word is, in Botvinnik's opinion, an indispensable element of any
combination. ("A combination is a forced variation with a sacrifice)." The
second meaning of the word 'sacrifice' relates to the giving-up of material in
the absence of a combination-i.e. to a move which is not connected with a chain
of precisely calculated variations that lead by force to success for the player
making the
sacrifice. Spielmann called such sacrifices "real" (as distinct from "apparent",
as in the first case) When making a "real" sacrifice a chess player relies on
the influence of certain positional factors to compensate for the material given
up. But his calculations may in fact not be justified, and therefore real
sacrifices are always associated with risk.
I thought Dvoretsky summarized it nicely.
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.