My thoughts are that in OTB play, I have played both sides of that exchange successfully. It's just not a big enough material sacrafice to justify the term (2 rooks = 10 pts, Q = 9 so your actually gaining). Also, I tend to discount it if it's a clear 2-3 move mate (I just consider that a tactic leading to mate). My personal definition is that it is a sac if it leads to an unclear/uncalculable continuation and it loses material (hopefully for positional considerations).
Originally posted by EnigmaticCamWhen it is not cancelled out by it being sacced for equal material. For example; a queen being taken in return for a rook and two minor pieces is not a sac, but a queen for a rook is.
When is a queen sac a queen sac then? When it leads to mate without a queen?
Originally posted by EnigmaticCamYes, a queen for 2 rooks isn't a sac.
Game 2146377
What do you think? Was it sound?
I've posted this before, but it's especially fitting in this case (I believe).
Game 1494726
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldWow, black fell right into that one.
Yes, a queen for 2 rooks isn't a sac.
I've posted this before, but it's especially fitting in this case (I believe).
Game 1494726
Indeed, I agree with CMS - while it doesn't warrant the term "Queen Sac" it is still a solid tactical manourve, that quickly won the game.
and regarding the definition of "sacrifice" - really, the word (in terms of chess) is actually an oxymoron - good players only "sacrifice" when they think something good (worth what they sac'd) will come of it
but here's some loose definitions you can play with...but generally speaking its when you give up material for position.
1) Sacrifice of the exchange. -- this is when you end up deliberatly down a trade
i.e PxN/B, N/BxR/Q B/N+B/NxQ, RxQ
2) Tempoary Sac - this is where you sac a piece but 3-4 moves later you win back the material you lost.
3) Positional - this where you sacrifice a piece for long term (uncalculable) benifits....
A pawn Gambit may be a good example - you sac the pawn for better development, however you cannot be certain it will actually work
Originally posted by chesskid001No, this is wrong. There isn't really a "fake sac" just sacs and...well "non" sacs. Shinidoki already gave a great description of this, so I'm not going to repeat it, just look at his last post. Sacrifices or "sacs" give up material- it could be a pawn, knight, anything besides a king, for some type of compensation. The various compensations are listed in Shinidoki's post. If a sac leads to a mate or a material gain it is actually a tactic or combination, or a temporary sac. Shinidoki also mentioned this. Hold on, I have a good example of this, let me try to find the game and I will edit this post.
What is called a "real" sac is one where a player sacrifices for position.
A "fake" sac is when a play sacs for mate or when a player sacs and gains material because of it.
EDIT: 🙁 it seems I can't find it. The game involved saccing the queen for a pawn only to then regain the material in the next few moves and earn a winning position! I think the combination was done by Botvinnik, but I can't find the game, if anybody else has it I'd be happy if you could link it 😉.