Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:28:36 10/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 1999 at 18:51:55, Ed Schröder wrote: >>Posted by Robert Hyatt on October 04, 1999 at 09:35:17: > >>>Then tell me the difference between a "positional sacrifice", and a >>"sacrifice". >> >> >>Here is how _I_ differentiate between the two: >> >>positional sacrifice: giving up material for some positional compensation >>that you believe will enable you to win when the game seems to be pretty >>even, or will enable you to draw if your opponent seems to be winning. IE >>black frequently plays RxNc3 in the Sicilian, as it removes a dangerous piece >>and prevents it from supporting the center, plus it often produces other weak- >>nesses such as two isolated pawns. Or where black has pawns at a2/b2/c2 and >>black finds a way to play a3 in a position where white must play bxa3. Black >>believes that by giving up the pawn, the three weak white pawns (a2/a3/c2) >>will >>eventually fall, and because they are isolated, white has no real chances of >>winning an endgame on the queenside as well. All of this is just positional >>judgement that says "my position before the sac is worse than my position >>after >>the sac." >> >>real sacrifice: giving up material, not because you see immediate positional >>gain that offsets the loss, but because you believe that the resulting >>position >>has tactical chances that are worth the gamble. IE the common Bxh7+ move that >>gets played even when white can't see a forced mate, but he can see the king >>getting into places where it might not be able to avoid a mate. This is more >>speculative since the sacrificer doesn't actually see whether the gamble pays >>off or not. I do this fairly often in blitz time controls myself. Probably >>more often than I do real positional sacrifices... > >Thanks for pointing out your views. > >When a human sacs with Bxh7+ he expects a win otherwise he wouldn't >play that move. Rebel played 24.gxh6 and Sherbakov took the bait (the >white knight) with 24..Qxd5? (24..g6! was the only good move) and then >was caught in a heavy king attack. Every annotator will call 24.gxh6 a sac. > >IMO. > >Ed > >PS, just read GM Scherbakov calls 24.gxh6 a sac too :) I realize that. I am simply pointing out that they are using the term _incorrectly_. IE Howard posted two different author's opinions of what makes a sacrifice. Both agreed that it requires _not_ seeing material gain as a result... in this game hxg6 doesn't sac anything, it wins a bunch.
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.