Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:41:52 10/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 1999 at 17:32:27, Howard Exner wrote:
>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.
It would seem that they mesh _exactly_ with what I have been saying about
the definition of the word all along?
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.