Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonAnd some sacrifices are made to win material.
Indeed.
It seems that "winning a pawn" would be a more accurate description of the game in question.
They're more appropriately called pseudo-sacs.
I'm not getting anymore involved in this argument though as it misses the point entirely.
The point is to show off that great combination.
Originally posted by ResigningSoonNice trap. Thanks for posting. I've never seen f3 played in the Nimzo before. 4.a3 is the only variation of the Samisch I'm familiar with. Learn something new every day.
This doesn't happen often.
Another trap in the nimzo:
[pgn]1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 d5 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. Qd3 Ba5 7. e4 Nb4 8. Qd1 Qxd4 9. Qxd4 Nc2+ 10. Kf2 Nxd4 11. Be3 Nc2 0-1[/pgn]
Yes after that huge benoni thread, I'm still playing the nimzo. I haven't memorized all the lines of the benoni yet.
Additional thought: Deflectio ...[text shortened]... started to use it within the last few months. I hope someone can learn from this pattern.
To enter the argument about whether that was a sac or not, Euwe refers to that kind of move as a sham sacrafice.
What a stunning sacrifice...
I think "petite combinaison" would be a better description.
On the topic of sacrifices, there are chessplayers who claim that a Rook "sacrifice" followed by a mate in five moves is not really a sacrifice. For me though, this still counts as a sacrifice. What are the opinions on such a scenario?
Originally posted by heinzkatYou can put a piece en-prise to win back a piece of the same value, that's not a sac, it's a trade.
On the topic of sacrifices, there are chessplayers who claim that a Rook "sacrifice" followed by a mate in five moves is not really a sacrifice. For me though, this still counts as a sacrifice. What are the opinions on such a scenario?
But if you trade your piece into another currency (perhaps the most lethal one: a mate), it's nothing more than a trade either.
If you trade a piece for a better position, a free line, a ruined castling right, or whatever, is it a sac then? Well, you still trade thing for thing.
Is it only pieces you can sacrifice? If you sacrifice your castling rights (give up the chort castling) in order to get a pawn in return, is this a sac? I say so. Others do not. Therefore the very word 'sac' is a fuzzy word.
A sac is not much more than a trade, one thing for another. If it happens to be a piece you sac, we usually call it a sac. But in reality it's nothing more than a trade.
A sac is the beginning of a combination where you give up something to get something. Hopefully you are better off afterwards than before.
Originally posted by GolubI think Rudolf Spielemann (1883-1942) is not just an author with fancy newly invented words.
There are many great authors who have introduced new words for old concepts and it does not mean that they are somehow recognized in the chess community. That's off-topic though.
His book "Richtig Offern" is a real classic, has been ranslated to numerous languages, including English: "The art of sacrifice".
So when I say I trust him, I really do.