Originally posted by omulcusobolaniAh,but Tal won the game!According to shini a sac is no sac if you benefit from it.Following that,the word sacrifice simply has no place in chess.
I think Shinidoki thinks of sacrifices as something like this:http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1140006 and I think he might be right.
Apart from that I think you're right.If the word sacrifice has to be used shini would want it to refer to something like Tal did in that game.
Nice game btw 🙂
- Joined
- 16 Dec 04
- Moves
- 56692
Originally posted by ShinidokiThe pieces are sacrificing themselves for the greater good though, non? The opponent may not take the piece, but they can, even if it is an error, and that would be a sacrifice. Sometimes a player may make a sac that gives tempo or position and the end is not always clear, surely that is a sacrifice? You don't distinguish between each type.
I'm saying the word "sacrifice", chesswise, is an oxymoron.
if the word wasn't currently being used I'd suggest calling all "sacs" "exchanges" or "swaps" --afterall, I am tradeing my Queen for mate in 2.
Anyway, when people mention 'sacrifice' you automatically know what they are talking about so what's the problem? It's just a form of tactic.
^^^Pawns, Knights, Queens, etc don't sacrifice themeselves, you, as the commanding general of your forces give them orders, which they must obey.
my arguement is quite simple, I am simply saying the word "sacrifice" is a wrong one -- it is an ironic name for such a tactic, afterall, only a moron would be able to sac a queen and get no compensation for it.
and my other axe to grind regarding "sacs" is why they are regarded in such with such awe? - why are players so proud when they sucessfully sac a queen? why is that game held with higher regard and with such reverence that all their other games are little in comparision?
In my time here (at the forums) i have seen hundreds of topics saying "check this sac out" or, like this one "post your sac games" --- where are the threads that say "hey, post your killer pins", etc?
quite clearly, sacs are regarded as more than just mere 'tactics' by some, by many infact.
Originally posted by ShinidokiBy almost everyone really.
^^^Pawns, Knights, Queens, etc don't sacrifice themeselves, you, as the commanding general of your forces give them orders, which they must obey.
my arguement is quite simple, I am simply saying the word "sacrifice" is a wrong one -- it is an ironic name for such a tactic, afterall, only a moron would be able to sac a queen and get no compensation for i ...[text shortened]... learly, sacs are regarded as more than just mere 'tactics' by some, by many infact.
It's simple,sacs are surprising,exciting,dangerous.They tickle your imagination.
Of course sacrificing a piece to deliver mate in 2 or 3 isn't very exciting,though it can still be surprising and is always a nice finish.But a sac leading to a more unclear position is something that captures everyone's attention and by nature people hope it will turn out well.People root for the one taking risks.
[Event "uChess rated"]
[Site "www.uchess.com"]
[Date "2006.8.10"]
[Round "?"]
[White "YUG0slav"]
[Black "samal"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e2-e4 c7-c5 2. Ng1-f3 Nb8-c6 3. d2-d4 c5xd4 4. Nf3xd4 a7-a6 5. Nb1-c3 e7-e5 6. Nd4xc6 b7xc6 7. Bf1-c4 Ng8-f6 8. O-O d7-d6 9. Bc1-g5 Bf8-e7 10. Qd1-d2 O-O 11. Ra1-d1 Qd8-c7 12. Bg5xf6 g7xf6 13. Qd2-h6 Bc8-e6 14. Rd1-d3 Kg8-h8 15. Rf1-d1 Rf8-g8 16. Bc4xe6 f7xe6 17. Rd3-h3 Rg8-g7 18. Rd1-d3 Ra8-g8 19. Rd3-g3 Be7-f8 20. Qh6xf6 1-0
that might not really count as I didnt really sacrifice anything, but the intent to do so with 14. Rd3 and 21. Rxh7+! was there before he resigned.
try this game from OTB.
Aginis - NN
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Be3 Be7 7.g4!? O-O? 8.g5 Nfd7 9.h4 Ne5? 10.f4 Nec6 11.h5 e5 12.h6!? exd5 13.hxg7 dxe4?? (a much stronger defense is Kxg7) 14.Qh5 f6 15.Qxh7+ Kf7 16.gxf8=Q+ Kxf8 17.g6 resigns
i didn't calculate all the variations becuase i was playing a weaker player, so i was trusting my gut. However it turns out that even 13...Kxg7 loses to 14.Rxh7+!! Kxh7 15.Qh5+ Kg8 16.g6! fxg6 17.Qxg6 Kh8 18.Qh6+ Kg8 19.Bc4+ d5 20.Nxd5 Be6 21.Nxe7+ Qxe7 22.Bxe6+ Qxe6 23.Qxe6+ +-
As for the definition of sacrifice: destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else. (from Merriam-Webster online) no one says that a sac can't get you something.
Originally posted by ShinidokiBut material is sacrificed for gain in position or tempo.
my arguement is quite simple, I am simply saying the word "sacrifice" is a wrong one -- it is an ironic name for such a tactic, afterall, only a moron would be able to sac a queen and get no compensation for it.
You seem to have a problem with the word sacrifice in all it's uses. Are you saying that a woman sacrifised in ancient times wasn't really sacrificed because it (supposedly) helped the rest of the population/guaranteed a good crop.
I've posted this game a few times in here. Game 1514982
D