Go back
double bishop sacrifice a la greenpawn

double bishop sacrifice a la greenpawn

Only Chess

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down



yes people i will be here all week giving lectures and signing copies of my latest chess dvd in the foyer, a patzers guide to playing the guitar 😀

Vote Up
Vote Down

Why did Black play 18... Nd6?

Vote Up
Vote Down

^ because otherwise, 19. Nf5 would have been an illegal move.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
double bishop sacrifice a la greenpawn
What has greenpawn to do with this?

Vote Up
Vote Down

the first is an exchange, not a sacrifice, the second is a pseudo-sacrifice.

Vote Up
Vote Down

The first one is a finesse, not an exchange, and the second one is known as "Plucking the Goose". Pseudosacrifice isn't even a word.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by doodinthemood
Pseudosacrifice isn't even a word.
I googled "Pseudosacrifice" and "Pseudo-sacrifice" and got some results...

Vote Up
Vote Down

Indeed it is a word ! You can add that prefix (and ton of other, from latin language for example) to a whole lot of words to change their initial meaning. These combined words just sound extremly cool 'n sexy !

O yeah.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ivan2908
Indeed it is a word ! You can add that prefix (and ton of other, from latin language for example) to a whole lot of words to change their initial meaning. These combined words just sound extremly cool 'n sexy !

O yeah.
"Pseudo" is not Latin, you pseudo-linguist, it's Greek! 😛

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by doodinthemood
The first one is a finesse, not an exchange, and the second one is known as "Plucking the Goose". Pseudosacrifice isn't even a word.
thanks for your opinion.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FabianFnas
What has greenpawn to do with this?
I've no idea - most of my sacs are unsound.

Perhaps these are?

Maybe it's because my 1983 book inspired him to go sac -happy.

I've seen the term 'pseudo sac' a lot in chess writing.

You sacrifice a piece to gain material knowing you are going to
get the piece back.

Here is genuine P-sac from the theory of the Two Knights.
7.Bxd5 is the p-sac as White wins back the piece with 8.Nc3

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"Pseudo" is not Latin, you pseudo-linguist, it's Greek! 😛
I said "from Latin language, for example" 'cause I have a list of Latin prefixes !! I never said that "pseudo" is Latin you pseudo-reader of my post !😏

3 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by doodinthemood
The first one is a finesse, not an exchange, and the second one is known as "Plucking the Goose". Pseudosacrifice isn't even a word.
it is a word, and even further, it's a chess concept used to distinguish "fake" sacrifices, in which there's a forced line to gain the material back within the limits of tactical calculation; from real sacrifices, where you sacrifice material to gain a positional advantage.

I have previously seen it used (and explained) by GM larry Kaufmann.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I've no idea - most of my sacs are unsound.

Perhaps these are?

Maybe it's because my 1983 book inspired him to go sac -happy.

I've seen the term 'pseudo sac' a lot in chess writing.

You sacrifice a piece to gain material knowing you are going to
get the piece back.

Here is genuine P-sac from the theory of the Two Knights.
7.Bxd5 is the ...[text shortened]...

[pgn]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3[/pgn]
look pawn dude, or anyone else for that matter, if you give up a piece knowing that you will not get its equivalent back in value, is it not a sacrifice? so please enough of the debate with regard to semantics, we artists, our works are meant to be appreciated, the aesthetic qualities looked upon with awe and reverence, the creativity echoed in the works of nature and natural wonders, alas! alas! surely tis not to be dissected like a bull frogs eyeball in the biology laboratory and gazed upon in gory detail and horror! and yes, admittedly it was as a result of the reading the pawns section of his 1983 book, for as for inspiration it is commendable, its a pity the next section, how to analyse a position is almost unintelligible, its premise being that we think like a tree!

1 edit
Vote Up
1
Vote Down

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its a pity the next section, how to analyse a position is almost unintelligible, its premise being that we think like a tree!.
Hi Robbie,

I did not write that section. 😉
That was Danny, it's meant to take one step up. Read it again in a
years time.

Then, as now, my method of analysing a position is to look
for an interesting sac (pseudo or otherwise) shut your eyes and play it.

I've been looking for an old Scottish mag that stated there are
three types of scarifce.

Solid (you are not getting the piece back)
Pseudo (you are getting the piece back)
Chandler (it's unsound)

I think it was Paul Motwani who said it - it was years ago, I may wrong.