|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Jul-14-05
 |
| RonB52734: It is probably most precise to say that a "sacrifice" requires the actual loss of material. When the piece is placed en prise but not captured, it's probably most correct to say that it was an "offered sacrifice." Thus, Jesus was a sacrifice but Abraham's son was an offered sacrifice. (The story of Jesus, I think, also qualifies as a "combination", no?) But surely behind this little twist of wordplay is a more important truth. Sitting at the board, evaluating whether to, say, smash one's queen into the opponent's pawn structure , one cannot know whether the opponent will be foolish enough to accept the sacrifice (unless it is forced). The important thing OTB, before the move is made, is realizing that putting a piece en prise cannot be rejected out of hand without evaluating the continuation. So, at least if your kibitzing is directed toward the analysis that precedes the move, there may be little point in distinguishing between a sacrifice and an offered sacrifice. The term "sacrifice" should serve here, although, if I'm not mistaken, the term "gambit" is still better. By the same token, however, if one is trying to describe the actual result of the move in a game under study, it would be more precise to keep the distinction clear. Agree? Disagree? |
 |
Jul-14-05
 |
| Richard Taylor: All those definitions of sacriffice are ok -but Taimanov -in my book - made a brilliant series of sacrifices here ..a "true sacrifice" is one in which the outcome is unclear but the position gained from it is very stong and or has lines leading to advantage or mate etc - some of the greatest combinations a have not been 'decipherd' but most are like this and are are more or less straight foreward -but very ingenious (and) insructive as they say in the trade. |
|
| Jul-14-05 |
| farrooj: errrr...ok, but I think the term 'sacrifice' means the action of giving a piece (or other) in order to obtain a win even if the opponent does not accept the sacrifice. A sacrifice usually has a purpose, if it is not accepted, it must also procure a win.
But in both cases, I think that it is called a sacrifice |
|
Jul-14-05
|
| Richard Taylor: [had to redo this my keyboarding is terrible]
I saw this - in fact I saw Kf2 first! - then I forgot about it and saw the Rxg6+ etc and for some reason couldn't see that the next move white could take the B (after a7+ Kxa7 I was (initially) looking at Qa5+ (bizzarre) ..then I saw that he could take the B! - I missed Ng7 but as I'd seen the idea Kf2 I would have found this sequence....I didnt notice that Taimanov had offered the Queen earlier - that is effectively a sacrifice and quite a brilliant game by Taimanov - <catfriend>'s comment is correct |
|
Jul-14-05
 |
| patzer2: <RonB52734> <It is probably most precise to say that a "sacrifice" requires the actual loss of material.>
Perhaps in Biblical terms a sacrfice must be accepted to qualify as a "sacrifice," but if you notice NM Jeremy Silman's definition it states that a Chess sacrifice is the <..."voluntary offer of material" for the purpose of gaining a more favorable advantage.> No where in this definition does it require that the sacrifice be accepted. |
|
| Jul-14-05 |
| Chesschatology: A sacrifice is offered.
It is then either accepted or declined.
Therefore a declined sacrifice is still a sacrifice, in the same way that the queen's gambit declined is still a variation of the queen's gambit! |
|
Jul-14-05
|
| Richard Taylor: The idea is to get a win -but some postitions have lead to unclear postitions that are impossble to evaluate - judgement is required
(and calculation but not everything can be calculated) in such sacs - eg some by Tal and others and some by Kasparov were not clear -one exchange sac he made every GM knew about (in a tournament he was in) and he said he would play it again and he did a few rounds later - but no one could refute it -despite knowing it was coming and analysing it extensively -no one was able to with stand it - as Kasparov has/had such talent and also he understood the sac (its strategical and tactical implications ) but other sacrfices also only lead to positional advantages and only garner a win with careful play - some lead into positions where more active play is possible - more posiblities of a win - some postions havenotbeen evaluated -of course the initiator of the sac was endeavouring to win -but also to make interesting and complex play - or just beautiful play - in a position where the advantage was the sacrificer's -but sometimes that advantage is very hard to see and defences are found after the game - those are the true sacrifices - involving a degree of uncertainty;some are still unevaluated after thousands of hours of analysis |
|
| Jul-14-05 |
| Chesschatology: <Richard Taylor>
"The idea is to get a win!"
Not necessarily. What about Petrosion's defensive sacrifice against Rehevsky which was designed to (and did)draw from a difficult position. |
|
Jul-14-05
 |
| YouRang: I got it, but it took a while. First, I tried to find ways to get rid of the knight (which was preventing Qg7#). It was only the 2nd time that I considered Rxg6+ that I saw the follow-up of h7+ and QxB+, with mate to follow after the king moves to f2. |
|
| Jul-14-05 |
| Rocafella: <Chesschatology> Could you please provide a link to this game? |
|
Jul-14-05
|
| RonB52734: <patzer2> Granted. But imagine yourself describing a game to a friend who did not see it. The conversation might go like this: You: "Tal had no pawns left on the board by move 40, and sacked his queen on move 52, yet held on to checkmate his opponent on move 60." Your friend: "Ah, the difficult B+N v K checkmate?"
You: "No."
Your friend: "I see, then, perhaps the 'guillotine' checkmate with two rooks?" You: "No, K+Q v K."
Your friend: "?" |
|
| Jul-14-05 |
| Lipsome: BTW Silman is an IM |
|
Jul-14-05
|
| patzer2: <Lipsome> Indeed Jeremy Silman is an International Master, in addition to being a highly respected Chess author, journalist and Teacher. His biography can be found at http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_d.... Thanks for the correction. |
|
Jul-15-05
|
| RonB52734: Also, Eskimos are said to have many words for "snow." The French have two words for "bakery," and the Americans have six for "couch." Shouldn't chess players have at least two words to distinguish among various types of sacrifice? |
|
Jul-15-05
|
| patzer2: <Shouldn't chess players have at least two words to distinguish among various types of sacrifice?> Maybe we already have them. Perhaps that's what Rudolf Spielmann (1883-1942) was trying to do when he distinguished between a "pseudo-sacrifice" (i.e. as part of a winning combination) and a "genuine sacrifice" (i.e. giving up material without a sure win) in his Book "The Art of Sacrifice in Chess" (1935). Maybe some of our German speaking kibitzers, who have access to the late Austrian GM Spielman's book can tell us if there are separate German words for "pseudo-sacrifice" and "genuine sacrifice." |
|
| Jul-16-05 |
| sneaky pete: <patzer2> That's "Scheinopfer" (subdivided in Stellungsopfer, Nutzopfer and Mattopfer) and "wirkliche Opfer". The expression <Scheinopfer> was used before Spielmann, but only to indicate simple combinational exchanges like 4... Nxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 (attacking Bc4 and Ne4) in the Two Knights Defence. |
|
Jul-16-05
|
| patzer2: Thanks <sneaky pete>. However, I was wondering if you could verify my translation of those terms to English.
I went to http://www.teleschach.com/dictionary/ for help and found: Opfer - Sacrifice
Scheinopfer - sham sacrifice
I also went to to an online translator at http://translation2.paralink.com/ Based on its results, I assume: wirkliche Opfer - a real sacrifice
Stellungsopfer - a positional sacrifice.
nutzopfer - a useful sacrifice
mattopfer - a weak sacrifice
|
|
Jul-17-05
 |
| euripides: <patzer> I think Mattopfer is a sacrifice to force mate and Nutzopfer may be a sacrifice to force material advantage. |
|
| Jul-17-05 |
| sneaky pete: <patzer2> The last 3 translations are not (quite) right, but I don't have an adequate English expression for each at hand. With <Stellungsopfer> is meant: a sequence of moves, starting with a (sham) sacrifice, leading to an improved position for the first player after material balance has been restored. "Nutz" means benefit or value. <Nutzopfer> implies winning (after some forced moves) sufficient material to compensate for the original sacrifice. In the present game 26.Bxd7 Qxh4 27.Bxe6+ .. 28.Bxd5 ..
would qualify as <Nutzopfer>. "Matt" means mate, so <Mattopfer> simply means: a sacrifice leading to forced mate, if accepted. Here after 24.Ba4 Qxa4? .. black would be mated, but he can still decline. After the second <Mattopfer> 37.Rxg6+ .. there is no escape. |
|
Jul-17-05
|
| patzer2: <euripides> Thanks for your help in correcting my poor attempt at translating with a computer. Looks like your translations are accurate and consistent with those of <sneaky pete>. |
|
Jul-17-05
|
| patzer2: <sneaky pete> Thanks for the translation help. So, with your explanations, I assume: 1. The Stellungsopfer (sacrifice leading to an improved position) is a subcategory or type of Scheinopfer (sham sacrifice). 2. The same is true of the Nutzopfer (sacrifice leading to increased material advantage) and the Mattopfer (sacrifice leading to mate). They start with or invovle a sham sacrifice, and are therefore a subcategory or type of Scheinopfer. 3. The wirkliche opfer (real or geunuine sacrifice) would always be separate from the other three classifications, since it doesn't involve or belong to the cateogy of "sham sacrifices." Appreciate if you can let me know if I'm correct in these assumptions. Thanks again. |
|
Jul-17-05
|
| euripides: <patzer> Computer translation is always worth a try provided one is aiming for poetic or comic effects. The best of Babelfish is really quite sublime. Your programme was in a somewhat prosaic mood, however. |
|
| Jul-17-05 |
| sneaky pete: <patzer2> See Game Collection: "The Art of Sacrifice in Chess" by R. Spielmann compiled by <mjk> to see the clear jargon used by the (unnamed) American translator. |
|
| May-14-09 |
| WhiteRook48: 40 Kf2!!! |
|
| Oct-13-09 |
| WhiteRook48: who needs the second rook anyway? |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
sac: 37.Rxg6+
