Sacrifice on e6

Originally posted by Varenka
Interesting game. Just curious, how hesistant were you regarding the sacrifice? Many chess players feel uncomfortable giving up material unless they see a clear way to account for it. Sometimes this can be a limitation in their play.

In this game I` was pretty sure that this sacrifice is correct - thats the reason why I` wasnt too hesistant when I regarded it.

P.S. It doesnt means that I` didnt search possible refutation of it.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
A true sacrifice is one where you can't calculate to the end. Most sacs where material is regained or mate is delivered within a move or 2 should be classed as combinations.

D

I agree - I generally like to play 'true sacs' if I get into some serious trouble, or have an interesting idea...they aren't necessarily safe all of the time though - for example...

Game 2174611 - from a while ago...sometimes you get lucky

Game 2668638 - the idea was to keep the king in a rather open territory and create an attack on it there, while still have a slight material edge.


And being a Dragon player I often utilize the exchange sacrifice -

Game 2943488

Here's a book line sacrifice (!) in the Dragon - this game was a loss, but I had been offered the draw two times before I resigned - and the resigned position isn't actually that bad for black, but I had too many games - and it was unrated, so clearing it out wasn't a big deal

Game 2575638


Sacrifices with a clear victory in sight...

Game 2325811 - I actually didn't calculate the win in this one, but played it more for the strategic idea, as I later saw though, a win is pretty much forced.

Game 2233163 - A nice game, minus my one big error. 🙁

And finally, my personal favorite game where I played with the KG...ever:

Game 2277433

There might be more, but that seems like enough to me.

Originally posted by Ragnorak

Game 2764496
I'm very happy with the offered bishop sac, 10...h5 which had a few points, 1) It'd open up the h file into the castled king position, 2) it would hopefully remove the knight at f3,which was defending h4, and blocking my queen from directly attacking the f2 pawn. 14...Rh1 was a pretty basic "sac" to allow my queen to get to the h4 square with gain of tempo.

D

That is a classic. Look for Brian Walls writings on the fishing pole/hyperpole variations of the roy lopez to see some fun games invoving N sacs on g4 after

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb4 Nf6
4. 0-0 Ng4?
5. h3? h5!

I think this thread deserves a bump.

I believe that the e6 sacrifice is rather thematic sacrifice in the Najdorf; for example, in this game, interesting but between a Fritz8 centaur and Fritz8 (both banned, of course). Game 2072053 Analyzing with the aid of Fritz8 analysis indicated that the 10…Bb7 and 10…g6 lines are refuted, but 10…Nf6 holds. For example: 10…Nf6 11.Be3 d5 12.f5 Be7 and Black intending to castle; the sac option isn’t there – as in this travesty of a game: Game 1754562. 🙄

I recall reading once that the Nsac is good when white may gain three pawns for the piece, and maintain an attack; however, I do not know such Najdorf positions offhand to add credibility to this general assertion.

Tal-Botvinnik WC match 1960, Classical CK…5. Ne2 is new to me, which isn’t saying much, although I recall the use of the move in this CK Game 1397656
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032520

Ivanchuk vs Sergey Volkov (French gone weird) 🙂
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1361556

Tal-Suetin (Sicilian Kan)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1134883

Tal sometimes did not play the technically best move in order to induce complications [obviously it appears he always aims for these]. I believe I read in an on-line article that Karpov claimed that he occasionally didn’t always play the best move; undoubtedly, in some positions, technically worse moves may give an opponent more chances to go wrong - many gambits and sacrifices, for instance.

The e6 sac made in the QID game posted is just a combination or a tactic a discovered attack ,not a sac,a sac means something which positionally puts ur opponent into trouble or weaken his king's defense.

Originally posted by harisankars2003
The e6 sac made in the QID game posted is just a combination or a tactic a discovered attack ,not a sac,a sac means something which positionally puts ur opponent into trouble or weaken his king's defense.

It definetly wasnt combination. It would be combination if I could get back my material soon. But i got material back (and more) only in the final stage of this game. For piece I got 2 pawns material. more valuable was positional compensation - his king in centre and better coordination of my attacking forces.