Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:44:21 10/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 1999 at 00:50:12, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On October 04, 1999 at 22:28:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > >Obviously it was a sac to GM Scherbakov, then, even if it wasn't a sac to Rebel. >:-) > >Dave That is likely a very real problem... ie maybe "a sacrifice is in the eye of the player".. :) Bob
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.