Only Chess
05 Mar 09
05 Mar 09
I will strongly consider sacrificing the exchange...
possible responses:
a) only when I see an immediate combination that will allow me to checkmate the opponent or win back the material
b) to get a strong attack going on my opponent's king
c) to improve my pieces positionally, even when the compensation is unclear
d) whenever it seems like it will lead to a fun game
e) other (insert your own)
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by sh76f) when nothing else works. desperado!
I will strongly consider sacrificing the exchange...
possible responses:
a) only when I see an immediate combination that will allow me to checkmate the opponent or win back the material
b) to get a strong attack going on my opponent's king
c) to improve my pieces positionally, even when the compensation is unclear
d) whenever it seems like it will lead to a fun game
e) other (insert your own)
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by sh76I cannot grasp the idea (c), for the positional improvisation has to be clear by means of accumulating forces in accordance to a specific plan and to specific targets. If the targets are unclear, the exchange sac is dubious.
I will strongly consider sacrificing the exchange...
possible responses:
a) only when I see an immediate combination that will allow me to checkmate the opponent or win back the material
b) to get a strong attack going on my opponent's king
c) to improve my pieces positionally, even when the compensation is unclear
d) whenever it seems like it will lead to a fun game
e) other (insert your own)
And the idea (d), the “fun game”, is not giving me a clear vision. Could you please elaborate further? For example, a “fun game” for me derives from a position with pieces and pawns all over the chessboard.
Now, here you are:
e) first of all, to get the initiative
f) to destroy the pawn structure of my opponent
g) to distract/ capture a key enemy piece
h) to open a vital file, a diagonal, a line
i) to evacuate or to free a square that I need for another piece or a pawn of mine
j) to block a vital file, a diagonal, a line
k) to promote a forced variation
l) to serve my intuition according to my evaluation of the position
05 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76In a serious rated game with long time controls, typically a.
I will strongly consider sacrificing the exchange...
possible responses:
a) only when I see an immediate combination that will allow me to checkmate the opponent or win back the material
b) to get a strong attack going on my opponent's king
c) to improve my pieces positionally, even when the compensation is unclear
d) whenever it seems like it will lead to a fun game
e) other (insert your own)
In a rapidplay type game, b.
In a friendly game always d.
Edit: What about you?
05 Mar 09
3 edits
Originally posted by MeadowsI think that knowing when to sac the exchange is one of the big differences between good attacking players and not such good attacking players. Not because exchange sacs are so common, but because it takes a lot of chess knowledge and insight to know how much positional improvement is worth an exchange sac.
Edit: What about you?[/b]
I used to be only in category (a). I'm starting to graduate to category (b) now as my attacking chess ever so slowly improves. My dream is to get to category (c); i.e., to know enough chess to be confident enough to sac the exchange in a serious game when the compensation is unclear and no immediate attack imminent.
(d) is for blitz and fun games where the ultimate result isn't that important to you. I lost a blitz game a few months ago where I had a chance to devastate his pawn structure with a bishop sac early and get an attack going, but I didn't. Late in the game, as it became clear that I was losing he IMs me in the chat box "Bxh3" i.e., I should have played it. I sent back "I wasn't sure it was sound." He writes back "So??" All I could do was laugh and say "good point."
@ black beetle: I think most of the things you listed are subsets of (c). You're right that (c) is too vague, but most of the things you mentioned are positions improvements. Some of them, though, are tactical ideas.
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by sh76Oh, you may name this "strategy" and that "tactics", however it seems to me that one has to be as much accurate as s/he can when s/he deals with the transformation of an abstract idea into moves😵
I think that knowing when to sac the exchange is one of the big differences between good attacking players and not such good attacking players. Not because exchange sacs are so common, but because it takes a lot of chess knowledge and insight to know how much positional improvement is worth an exchange sac.
I used to be only in category (a). I'm starting to ...[text shortened]... you mentioned are positions improvements. Some of them, though, are tactical ideas.
Enjoy the Immortal Game🙂
05 Mar 09
sometimes I will sac the exchange if I can achieve a development bonus with initiative to attack... it is always fun but not always successful. 😉 usually I just have to use my judgment. It can be a decisive advantage when (sac a rook for example) an enemy rook is locked away in the corner and my forces are able to bear down on the enemy position. Force concessions, if you can win back the material you will usually have a better position as well.
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by sh76"I will strongly consider sacrificing the exchange" when my piece is not performing its function.
I will strongly consider sacrificing the exchange...
possible responses:
a) only when I see an immediate combination that will allow me to checkmate the opponent or win back the material
b) to get a strong attack going on my opponent's king
c) to improve my pieces positionally, even when the compensation is unclear
d) whenever it seems like it will lead to a fun game
e) other (insert your own)
Other than the King, any chesspiece has 3 functions, primary, secondary, and tertiary:
1-- to ATTACK
2 --to support the ATTACK
3 --to defend from ATTACK
When it's not, it's standing in the way, get rid of it