Originally posted by robbie carrobie Rook where you been mate! i been trying like mad to find that article you posted by the dude that invented the smith morra gambit. do you remember it? it spoke of gambit lines, and learning the lines, trying to understand the liens, what a noob chess player should be aiming for etc etc.
Originally posted by Ice Cold Is that dude Ken Smith?
yes, Mad Rook posted an article ages ago written by Ken Smith in which he kind of outlined the correct procedure for intermediates and learners to progress.
Originally posted by masniak is it annotated somewhere? I mean the web.
I copied the game from ChessGames.com. Although hard to read, there are notes included in the pgn. Just click on the pgn tag under the board. Probably better just to go to ChessGames.com.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie yes, Mad Rook posted an article ages ago written by Ken Smith in which he kind of outlined the correct procedure for intermediates and learners to progress.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie yes, Mad Rook posted an article ages ago written by Ken Smith in which he kind of outlined the correct procedure for intermediates and learners to progress.
Originally posted by Mad Rook I clicked on the JavaScript link, and it appeared to me that the game was annotated by someone named Shipov, apparently a Russian GM.
Originally posted by AudreyxSophie what shock, it that we dare to call Be6,,, a queen sacrifice.
I don't understand it. I never saw a queen sacrifice in the entire game.....mainly because black get load of materials after losing his queen.
I agree. Fischer gets plenty of material for the queen. He has a powerful attack and Byrne has no counterplay at all and his King Rook is out of play in the corner for 8 moves.
Originally posted by AudreyxSophie what shock, it that we dare to call Be6,,, a queen sacrifice.
I don't understand it. I never saw a queen sacrifice in the entire game.....mainly because black get load of materials after losing his queen.
You are absolutely right in that statement, it is not a real sacrifice.
"In this respect we must first distinguish between two groups, namely sham and real sacrifices. The difference is this: sham sacrifices involve losses of material only for a definable amount of time; in the case of real sacrifices, the amount of time rquired for recovering the material is not clear.
Therefore a sham (temporary) sacrifice involves no risk. after a series of forced moves, the player either recovers the invested material with advantage, or else even mates his opponent. The consequences of the sacrifice were foreseen from the first. Properly speaking, there is no real sacrifice, only an advantageous business deal.
Yet such sacrifices must not be disparaged; often fine perception and a great deal of imagination are required, as well as the gift of intricate calculation, in order to discern possibilities in a postion and expolit them.
We shall divide sham sacrifices into three groups:
1. positional sacrifices
2. sacrifices for gain
3. mating sacrifices"
From "The Art of Sacrifice in Chess" By Rudolf Spielmann
So I guess I should have called it a Queen sham sac for a mate.
Don't make me slap you.
17 Dec '09 00:29
The Game of the Century
Back to Top