Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 18:18:29 10/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 1999 at 18:41:52, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>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?
I'm aware of this viewpoint. It's an ego thing for strong players. It's baloney.
They want to adopt a grandiose position on what a sac is, but then they forget
about that and counterfeit that position by applying it to situations they had
previously excluded. They're being silly. Ignore it.
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.