Especially with queen sacs I see a lot of threads where someone posts one, then others say it's not a true sac because of XYZ.
So is a sac only true if it does NOT result in immediate equal compensation or a mating web?
Can you post examples of common sacs (if there is such a thing) and brilliant, daring ones?
This is a common thing I do, "losing" the exchange with 1 piece for 2 pawns. Is this considered a sac?
a sacrifice is when you loose material for some other compensation (if you have no compensation I guess it would be called a blunder). Saying something is not a true sac is of course not fair.
There are two tipes of sacrifices: posicional and tactical. Tactical sacrifices result in mate or gain of material. Posicional sacrifices result in better positions, achieving initiative or for defensive resons (avoid mate or destroy the attack). Then of course you've got combined sacrifices in which you gain material and a better position (or just regain the material and get a better position)
Some people consider sacrifices with imidiate regain of material or imidiate mate pseudo-sacs (recovery in 1/2 moves) these generally have a positional value as well (or else they aren't worth doing), and should be considered proper sacrifices.
People tend to denegrate some sacrifices as they aren't so spectacular, and say they aren't true sacrifices, this is complete nonsense, and only shows these people are envying you for having the opportunity to round it off just that simply. If you sacrificed material and gained any advantage whatsoever it was a true sacrifice, and was worth it (except if there was a better move).
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperwhatever you do, don't ask EveRyDay. 🙂
Especially with queen sacs I see a lot of threads where someone posts one, then others say it's not a true sac because of XYZ.
So is a sac only true if it does NOT result in immediate equal compensation or a mating web?
Can you post examples of common sacs (if there is such a thing) and brilliant, daring ones?
This is a common thing I do ...[text shortened]... KQ - 0 1[/fen]
[fen]r1bq1rk1/pppp1p2/2n2n2/4p1B1/4P3/2PP4/P1P1BPPP/R2QK2R w KQ - 0 1[/fen]
pseudo sac: you regain material by force
'real' sac: you exchange material for some kind of dynamic compensation (structural weakness, activity, time, safety, etc...)
Originally posted by greenpawn34In that case I am good at sacrificial chess!
If you blunder a piece and lose the game. That is a blunder.
If you blunder a piece and win the game. Then it's a sacrifice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice_(chess)
I often blunder a piece in blitz, go for an all out attack not thinking about material and often win! Maybe I should start playing my favourite alekhine like this: 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 e6 😛
Originally posted by GarnothThat's not a sac that's a gambit 😵
In that case I am good at sacrificial chess!
I often blunder a piece in blitz, go for an all out attack not thinking about material and often win! Maybe I should start playing my favourite alekhine like this: 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 e6 😛
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperA sacrifice is when you deliberately give material away for some other kind of compensation [it does not matter if it's long-term or short-term].
Especially with queen sacs I see a lot of threads where someone posts one, then others say it's not a true sac because of XYZ.
So is a sac only true if it does NOT result in immediate equal compensation or a mating web?
Can you post examples of common sacs (if there is such a thing) and brilliant, daring ones?
This is a common thing I do KQ - 0 1[/fen]
[fen]r1bq1rk1/pppp1p2/2n2n2/4p1B1/4P3/2PP4/P1P1BPPP/R2QK2R w KQ - 0 1[/fen]
It is still a sacrifice even if the expected compensation does not pan out. That just means the sac was unsound, or not followed up properly.
It is incorrect to say that offering a Queen is not a sacrifice just because, say, checkmate follows one move later. It is still a sacrifice, although perhaps not as hard to see as others.
Originally posted by SwissGambitI don't think people would say those are not sacrifices. Just that they are not "true" sacrifices".
A sacrifice is when you [b]deliberately give material away for some other kind of compensation [it does not matter if it's long-term or short-term].
It is still a sacrifice even if the expected compensation does not pan out. That just means the sac was unsound, or not followed up properly.
It is incorrect to say that offering a Queen is not a s ...[text shortened]... follows one move later. It is still a sacrifice, although perhaps not as hard to see as others.[/b]
It really is just semantics and doesn't really matter as long as you know the meaning the person is using(if you don't then ask that specific person in that spefic case what they mean).
Personally I tend to classify them as true sacrifices and pseudo sacrifices. If I give away my bishop only to get a pawn and bishop out of it by force I would consider i a pseudo sacrifice. If however I give away a peice(such as the perenyi piece sack in the sicilian which is unclear who is winning-even at the highest levels it goes both ways) for some compensation (Another example is an exchange sac which doesn't lead to immediate mate or even material loss by force. But, weakens one color complex) then I would consider it a true sacrifice.