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.
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.) 😉
Originally posted by greenpawn34Yes, 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.
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.) 😉
Trust me, I wouldn't pull an RJ and try to make a mistake seem like "psychology" or part of a master plan.
Originally posted by chesskid001Very true. Thanks for pointing that out.
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.
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.) 🙂
Originally posted by SwissGambitGood point.
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.
Originally posted by greenpawn34In 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.
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.
Originally posted by SwissGambitSo 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.
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.
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! 😛
Originally posted by chesskid001In 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.
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.
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.)...
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.
Originally posted by greenpawn34My pride forces me to inform you that I checkmated this same opponent just a day later:
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]