Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member vivify
    rain
    26 Feb '13 06:02 / 12 edits
    Many sacs that I see on this forum aren't really sacs, in the sense that there's often an immediate benefit to giving up a piece, just a few moves later. Usually, a "sacrifice" posted on this forum, leads to mate or a queen fork shortly after. In short, nothing's really sacrificed.

    I consider the sacrifice in this game (as black) to a true sacrifice, in that while I gain some ground positionally, I still have to play on and make decent moves.

    Be fore warned: my opening moves were horrible.

  2. 26 Feb '13 06:37
    The sacrifices you made look very unsound. Simply 19.Qg3 (threatening havoc on g5), followed by Nc3 and White is winning pretty easily. Still, it was a nice way to come back from a lost game after the opening mistakes.
  3. 26 Feb '13 10:08
    Hi Viv.

    "In short, nothing's really sacrificed."

    True, sacrifices are usually a means to an end, the object being to get back the
    sacrificed material with a larger investment or checkmate.
    The initial sacrifice kicks of the combination.

    But your Knight sacrifice was really a blunder.
    (unless you can prove it was all part of some huge 23 move combination.)
  4. Standard member vivify
    rain
    26 Feb '13 13:19 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Hi Viv.

    "In short, nothing's really sacrificed."

    True, sacrifices are usually a means to an end, the object being to get back the
    sacrificed material with a larger investment or checkmate.
    The initial sacrifice kicks of the combination.

    But your Knight sacrifice was really a blunder.
    (unless you can prove it was all part of some huge 23 move combination.)
    Yes, that was a pure blunder. My sacs were with the two bishops (move 15 and 17), not the knight. I even acknowlegded in the notes, that I shook my head at myself for falling for white's trap.

    Trust me, I wouldn't pull an RJ and try to make a mistake seem like "psychology" or part of a master plan.
  5. Standard member vivify
    rain
    26 Feb '13 13:58
    Originally posted by chesskid001
    The sacrifices you made look very unsound. Simply 19.Qg3 (threatening havoc on g5), followed by Nc3 and White is winning pretty easily. Still, it was a nice way to come back from a lost game after the opening mistakes.
    Very true. Thanks for pointing that out.
  6. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    26 Feb '13 19:27
    Sacrifice
    a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else

    Nowhere does it say that the 'something else' can't have greater value than the something surrendered. Therefore, giving up a Rook for a pawn to force mate is still a sacrifice.
  7. 26 Feb '13 20:30 / 1 edit
    Hi Viv.

    I've got it now.

    The singular; "I consider the sacrifice in this game..."
    Threw me, I thought it was the one sac, the Knight blunder/sac.

    The other sacs are what is termed unclear sacrifices.
    Practical counterplay sacs as opposed to clutching at straws sacs.

    One could argue a True Sac is one that is sound in all variations.
    But it's your game, your notes, your thoughts, so call them what you like
    I won't argue with you.

    An incredible amount of players both on here and OTB have lost a
    game after picking up a Knight with that trick and simliar ones like it.
    You would have to say the piece up player has totally relaxed and
    is in game won mode.
    (either that or a centre pawn is worth a lot more than a Knight.)
  8. Standard member vivify
    rain
    26 Feb '13 23:28
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Sacrifice
    a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else

    Nowhere does it say that the 'something else' can't have greater value than the something surrendered. Therefore, giving up a Rook for a pawn to force mate is still a sacrifice.
    Good point.
  9. Standard member vivify
    rain
    26 Feb '13 23:31
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    One could argue a True Sac is one that is sound in all variations.
    But it's your game, your notes, your thoughts, so call them what you like
    I won't argue with you.
    In light of Swiss Gambit's post, I have to take back what I said about a "true sacrifice". A sac, whether the reward is great or small, is still a sac.
  10. 26 Feb '13 23:43
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Sacrifice
    a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else

    Nowhere does it say that the 'something else' can't have greater value than the something surrendered. Therefore, giving up a Rook for a pawn to force mate is still a sacrifice.
    So by that definition, would winning a Queen for a Knight count as a sacrifice? After all, you're "surrendering" a piece for something else, namely a piece worth three times as much.
  11. 27 Feb '13 00:35
    The white queen did invade on the e-file... if there was a pawn there the checkmate may not have been possible. Yet this was due to inaccurate play from white. However, it does show how you can take advantage of a blunder... the e-pawn may be worth a knight down the road, so why not just whack it off the start!
  12. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    27 Feb '13 01:03
    Originally posted by chesskid001
    So by that definition, would winning a Queen for a Knight count as a sacrifice? After all, you're "surrendering" a piece for something else, namely a piece worth three times as much.
    In a chess context, 'sacrifice' generally refers to a deliberate loss of material. The definition allows your example to be a sacrifice, but the context does not.
  13. 27 Feb '13 04:54
    I think the definition being used here is missing something. I always thought a sacrifice involved a tactical aspiration of some sort. I looked it up on Wikipedia and this is what it says: "In chess, a sacrifice is a move giving up a piece in the hopes of gaining tactical or positional compensation in other forms. A sacrifice could also be a deliberate exchange of a chess piece of higher value for an opponent's piece of lower value."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice_%28chess%29

    So according to this, taking a queen in exchange for a knight is not a sacrifice but taking a knight in exchange for a queen is.

    It goes on to mention Real sacrifices (which is the type the OP calls a true sacrifice) and a sham sacrifice or pseudo sacrifice (where the player offering the sacrifice will soon regain material of the same or greater value, or else force mate.)...
  14. 27 Feb '13 14:14 / 1 edit
    The Wiki statement is close to what I mentioned.

    .....sacrifices are usually a means to an end, the object being to get
    back the sacrificed material with a larger investment or checkmate.

    'usually' covers desperado sacs, or sacs for a stalemate etc...

    I also said this:

    "An incredible amount of players both on here and OTB have lost a
    game after picking up a Knight with that trick and simliar ones like it."



    Good to see viv is learning from his losses.
    Viv picks up a whole Knight on move 7 and resigns 15 moves later.

    (maybe we have stumbled upon the secret of Chess....
    ....lose a knight in the opening, it wins!!)

    vivify -archangel666 RHP Nov 2012.


  15. Standard member vivify
    rain
    27 Feb '13 14:29 / 16 edits
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    The Wiki statement is close to what I mentioned.

    .....sacrifices are usually a means to an end, the object being to get
    back the sacrificed material with a larger investment or checkmate.

    'usually' covers desperado sacs, or sacs for a stalemate etc...

    I also said this:

    "An incredible amount of players both on here and OTB have lost a
    game is Doomsday. Note White still has that extra Knight which we now know is a handicap.}[/pgn]
    My pride forces me to inform you that I checkmated this same opponent just a day later: