Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

A true sacrifice

Standard membervivify
Only Chess 26 Feb '13 06:02
  1. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    12351
    26 Feb '13 06:0212 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.

    Invert BoardPGNHeadersComments
  2. c
    Standard memberchesskid001
    USA
    Joined
    22 Dec '05
    Moves
    13780
    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. Subscribergreenpawn34
    e4
    Joined
    06 May '08
    Moves
    42492
    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 membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    12351
    26 Feb '13 13:192 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 membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    12351
    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. S
    Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    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. Subscribergreenpawn34
    e4
    Joined
    06 May '08
    Moves
    42492
    26 Feb '13 20:301 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 membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    12351
    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 membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    12351
    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. c
    Standard memberchesskid001
    USA
    Joined
    22 Dec '05
    Moves
    13780
    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. C
    Standard memberChessJester
    EDMONTON ALBERTA
    Joined
    30 Sep '05
    Moves
    10841
    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. S
    Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    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. C
    Standard memberChessJester
    EDMONTON ALBERTA
    Joined
    30 Sep '05
    Moves
    10841
    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. Subscribergreenpawn34
    e4
    Joined
    06 May '08
    Moves
    42492
    27 Feb '13 14:141 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.


    Invert BoardPGNComments
  15. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    12351
    27 Feb '13 14:2916 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:

    Invert BoardPGNHeadersComments
Back to Top
Sign up or Connect to Play Chess

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree