Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 12 Oct '12 22:08
    I have found it dear friends, the definitive positional sacrifice, check it out, 16.Ne6




    Jan Smejkal v Lev Gutman 1985
  2. Subscriber Marinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    12 Oct '12 22:15
    As beautiful as this is, i have to go with Kasparov...

  3. 12 Oct '12 22:18
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I have found it dear friends, the definitive positional sacrifice, check it out, 16.Ne6

    [fen]1r2qrk1/pppnppb1/2b1N1pp/8/3PP3/2P3P1/P1Q2PBP/1RB2RK1 b - - 0 1[/fen]


    Jan Smejkal v Lev Gutman 1985
    [pgn][Event "Griesbach"] [Site "Griesbach"] [Date "1985.??.??"] [Round "-"] [White "Jan Smejkal"] [Black "Lev Gutman"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A16"] 1.c ...[text shortened]... g2 Qa4 23.Qe2 e6 24.c4 Rd8 25.Be3 Nd3 26.Be4 Qxc4 27.Qg4 Kg8 28.Qxg6 1-0[/pgn]
    Given that, after 16 Ne6 fxe6 17 d5 exd5 18 exd5 Bxd5 19 Bxd5+, White has
    quickly regained the 'sacrificed' piece (it's not hard to calculate this variation),
    why do you (Robbie Carrobie) think this is the 'ultimate positional sacrifice'?

    Given that White should be able to calculate regaining the 'sacrificed' piece,
    why would you consider it a 'real' sacrifice at all?
  4. 12 Oct '12 22:33 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Given that, after 16 Ne6 fxe6 17 d5 exd5 18 exd5 Bxd5 19 Bxd5+, White has
    quickly regained the 'sacrificed' piece (it's not hard to calculate this variation),
    why do you (Robbie Carrobie) think this is the 'ultimate positional sacrifice'?

    Given that White should be able to calculate regaining the 'sacrificed' piece,
    why would you consider it a 'real' sacrifice at all?
    I am glad you asked, because not only does it leave the entire complex of white squares in blacks camp weak, it also leaves black with three isolated pawns, with a queen and rook on board, one rook on the seventh, the ultimate positional sacrifice. The fact that white can regain the material is irrelevant, at worst it my be termed a
    temporary sacrifice.
  5. 12 Oct '12 22:51
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I am glad you asked, because not only does it leave the entire complex of white squares in blacks camp weak, it also leaves black with three isolated pawns, with a queen and rook on board, one rook on the seventh, the ultimate positional sacrifice. The fact that white can regain the material is irrelevant, at worst it my be termed a
    temporary sacrifice.
    I am not disputing that 16 Ne6 was a strong move. I am disputing
    your absurd claim that 16 Ne6 was 'the ultimate positional sacrifice'.
    Given that White could calculate that he regains the 'sacrificed' piece within
    three moves, 16 Ne6 is not a real sacrifice (which involves more risk) at all.

    "...it my (sic) be termed a temporary sacrifice."
    --Robbie Carrobie

    If you believe that, I suppose that you would believe that being temporarily
    behind in material before a forced recapture also means a 'temporary sacrifice'.

    Let's consider this in the Queen's Gambit Declined Exchange Variation:
    1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 cxd5 exd5 5 Bg5 Nbd7 6 Nxd5?? Nxd5
    (Has Black made a 'temporary sacrifice' of the queen?)
    7 Bxd8 Bb4+ 8 Qd2 (forced) Bxd2+ 9 Kxd2 Kxd8 and Black should win.

    Would Robbie regard 6...Nxd5 as a 'temporary sacrifice' of Black's queen?
  6. 12 Oct '12 23:04 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    I am not disputing that 16 Ne6 was a strong move. I am disputing
    your absurd claim that 16 Ne6 was 'the ultimate positional sacrifice'.
    Given that White could calculate that he regains the 'sacrificed' piece within
    three moves, 16 Ne6 is not a real sacrifice (which involves more risk) at all.

    "...it my (sic) be termed a temporary sacrifice."
    -- win.

    Would Robbie regard 6...Nxd5 as a 'temporary sacrifice' of Black's queen?
    its not absurd, its a brilliant move which temporarily sacrifices a knight for the gain of
    every white square in blacks position and saddles black with not one, not two, but three
    isolated pawns and lets white put a rook on the seventh, i challenge you to find any
    other sacrifice, temporary or otherwise which accomplished this much and your queens
    gambit is not valid, for it results in no concrete positional features, like a rook on the
    seven, three isolated pawns and the domination of an entire colour complex, all it
    results in is a gain of material.
  7. 12 Oct '12 23:30 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    its not absurd, its a brilliant move which temporarily sacrifices a knight for the gain of
    every white square in blacks position and saddles black with not one, not two, but three
    isolated pawns and lets white put a rook on the seventh, i challenge you to find any
    other sacrifice, temporary or otherwise which accomplished this much and your que ...[text shortened]... pawns and the domination of an entire colour complex, all it
    results in is a gain of material.
    Robbie Carrobie, again either you persist in misunderstanding what I wrote
    or you are dishonestly distorting what I wrote rather than admit to any error.

    Contrary to what you have implied, I have *not* asserted that 16 Ne6
    was an absurd move by GM Jan Smejkal. I do assert that it's absurd for
    Robbie Carrobie to claim 16 Ne6 was 'the ultimate positional sacrifice'
    when, in fact, it was not a real sacrifice at all.

    Robbie Carrobie, the more that you continue in this disingenuous vein, the
    more that you convince me that some of your critics are right about you.

    "As stubborn as ever and still trying to get in the last word."
    --Greenpawn34 (writing to Robbie Carrobie, 2 October 2012)
  8. 12 Oct '12 23:41 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Robbie Carrobie, again either you persist in misunderstanding what I wrote
    or you are dishonestly distorting what I wrote rather than admit to any error:

    Contrary to what you have implied, I have *not* asserted that 16 Ne6
    was an absurd move by GM Jan Smejkal. I *do* assert that it's absurd
    for Robbie Carrobie to claim 16 Ne6 was 'the ultimate po ngenuous vein, the
    more that you convince me that some of your critics are right about you.
    I have neither misrepresented what you have stated nor am i being facetious or
    disingenuous, there are two parts to my assertion, one that your claim that my claim of
    it being a brilliant positional sacrifice is absurd, when clearly its a perfectly logical
    assertion demonstrated in the example that I have given in which the fact that it was a
    temporary sacrifice does not negate (in my opinion) and secondly the example that you
    gave is not valid because the resultant position contains no positionally decisive
    features, but a gain of material and it cannot therefore be considered to be a positional
    sacrifice at all.
  9. 13 Oct '12 00:08
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I have neither misrepresented what you have stated nor am i being facetious or
    disingenuous, there are two parts to my assertion, one that your claim that my claim of
    it being a brilliant positional sacrifice is absurd, when clearly its a perfectly logical
    assertion demonstrated in the example that I have given in which the fact that it was a ...[text shortened]... a gain of material and it cannot therefore be considered to be a positional
    sacrifice at all.
    Evidently, Robbie Carrobie keeps putting words into my mouth.
    Either he has extremely poor reading comprehension or he's quite dishonest.
    Robbie Carrobie does not understand that words, when put together, often don't
    have the same meaning that he claims or fantasizes that they should have.

    When I cited an example in the Queen's Gambit Declined Exchange Variation,
    I did *not* assert that 6...Nd5 was a 'positional sacrifice', contrary to Robbie
    Carrobie's misleading claim about what I wrote. I asked Robbie Carrobie
    whether or not he believed, according to his notion of a 'temporary sacrifice',
    whether or not he believed 6...Nd5 was a 'temporary sacrifice', and he did
    *not* reply to my question. In the interest of absolute clarity, I do *not*
    believe that 6...Nd5 was any kind of sacrifice, of course, it was just a move
    in an easily calculable sequence that leads Black toward a winning position.

    The rest of Robbie Carrobie's post warrants no further response. He just seems
    to keep ignoring everything relevant that I have written and continues reiterating
    his nonsense. It's none of my business, but, given his unwillingness to look more
    critically at his own shortcomings and to learn from stronger players by admitting
    that he does not already know everything, I doubt that Robbie Carrobie can
    improve significantly at chess. But that's his concern, not mine.
  10. 13 Oct '12 00:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Evidently, Robbie Carrobie keeps putting words into my mouth.
    Either he has extremely poor reading comprehension or he's quite dishonest.
    Robbie Carrobie does not understand that words, when put together, often don't
    have the same meaning that he claims or fantasizes that they should have.

    When I cited an example in the Queen's Gambit Declined Exchan ie Carrobie can
    improve significantly at chess. But that's his concern, not mine.
    flip sake, you are on a rampage, its not that big a deal, i don't know what you do to
    relax, but please do it and for the record i have put no words in your mouth, I fully
    read, assimilated and understood what you said, i just don't happen to agree with it, i
    have not ignored anything that you have written and yes i do a great line in nonsense,
    its probably one of my truly endearing qualities, but i understand that not everyone likes
    free form jazz, and I can improve immensely at chess, being written off and
    disheartened in this way is an incentive to improve although I am not motivated by
    egocentricities or attacks upon my person and nowhere have i claimed that i know
    everything or that I am infallible. If you could be a little more convivial Duchess64 and
    a little less inclined to jump to conclusions it might help your case, just saying.
  11. Subscriber Marinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    13 Oct '12 01:13
  12. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    13 Oct '12 02:16
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    flip sake, you are on a rampage, its not that big a deal, i don't know what you do to
    relax, but please do it and for the record i have put no words in your mouth, I fully
    read, assimilated and understood what you said, i just don't happen to agree with it, i
    have not ignored anything that you have written and yes i do a great line in nonsense, ...[text shortened]... ss64 and
    a little less inclined to jump to conclusions it might help your case, just saying.
    I get the impression Duchess64 is a high class broad.

    YouTube
  13. 13 Oct '12 02:31
    Yeah so i'm not gonna bother reading through that wall of text above me but I'm guessing it's mostly to do with Ne6 not even being a sacrifice. White wins back his material by force.

    That Robbie literally states "the fact that white can regain the material is irrelevant" is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I really hope English is not your first language. I sacrificed brain cells reading that Robbie. I can't get them back.
  14. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    13 Oct '12 02:40
    Originally posted by Hiyah
    Yeah so i'm not gonna bother reading through that wall of text above me but I'm guessing it's mostly to do with Ne6 not even being a sacrifice. White wins back his material by force.

    That Robbie literally states "the fact that white can regain the material is irrelevant" is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I really hope English is not your first language. I sacrificed brain cells reading that Robbie. I can't get them back.
    No, robbie is Scottish, I believe.
  15. 13 Oct '12 05:15 / 1 edit
    I see I have been mentioned in this thread so
    I can take that as an opportunity to join this thread.

    The trouble I, and others, have is with the term 'positional sacrifice'.

    Let us look at the Oxford Companion to Chess
    one of the most meticulously researched books on the subject of Chess.

    In the section titled Positional Play
    Hooper and Whyld state:

    "The distinction between positional and tactical play is not clear cut.
    All good moves have a strategic purpose and most contain tactical elements."

    "...not clear cut." When does positional become tactical and visa versa.

    In the section titled 'Positional Sacrifice" they state:

    "The distinction beween a positional sacrifice and any other kind
    is somewhat fuzzy."

    So here we have a book praised by everyone including Edward Winter,
    meticulously researched and yet when it comes to explaining exactly what
    is a positional sacrifice the best they have is...'fuzzy.'

    The fuzziness (for me ) comes with how you judge a position.

    Suppose White sacs the exchange to achieve a Knight outpost.
    I prefer the term positional combination.
    You have played a forced series of moves to achive an aim. (a Knight outpost).
    Capablanca called them his 'wee combinations'.

    In the case mentioned the Knight dominates the board.
    The value of the Knight has risen to that above a Rook.
    So Where is the sacrifice?

    After a sacrifice you are meant to be down material.
    In the case of sacrificial attack against the King one
    can be two or even three pieces down and the remaining pieces
    hoplessly out of play delivering mate in the corner of the board.
    It matters not, the game is over.

    After a correctly played so called positional sacrifice
    the value of your remaining pieces or pieces has risen
    beyond the scope of what they were before the sac was played.
    So where is the sacrifice?

    Spielmann covering the Positional Sacrifice in his book
    The Art of Sacrifice states:

    "However, if when all is said and done the positional sacrifice
    is only an exchange..."

    My reckoning is and everyone who has ever played a postional sacrifice
    must agree. (else why play one) is that their position has improved
    as a result of the sacrifice and their piece or pieces have much
    more scope and mobility.
    They have judged the position is better for them even though
    they is no way to calculate it out to a win.
    Where is the sacrifice?
    A closer term would it's a postional exchange.
    (stick 'The Positional Exchange' on the cover of a book and see
    how many copies it sells.)

    You also have the term Positional Sacrifice covering defensive moves.
    You sac the exchange so your opponents pieces have lost their mobility
    and the attack falters.
    You are not improving your position, you are improving your chances
    of not getting beat. 'The Positonal Back to Wall Sac.'

    The only case of what I would call a genuine Positional Sacrifice
    is what Spielmann calls an Obstructive Sacrifice.

    He gives this example: White to play.


    White played 4.e6. A genuine sacrifice, not a exchanging a Rook
    for a Knight or even a Queen for a couple of minor pieces.

    After 4...fxe6


    Black will have trouble getting his Bishop's out,
    the Black King's position has been weakened.
    This sacrifice with the majority of the White pieces still on the
    back rank and no clear calculated win in sight is, if there is such a thing,
    a positional sacrifice.

    But the term Blockading sacrifce or Developing Sacrifice suits just as well.
    It's played 4 moves into the game, you could claim it was a gambit pawn.
    (more fuzziness.)

    I think a strategic combination or positonal combination
    is a better term than a postional sacrifice.

    Not all combinations have to end in mate or the win of material,
    in this case of an exchange sacrifice combination you have improved your
    position and the tactical scope of your pieces.

    A strategic exchange or positional exchange may even be better.

    But sacrifice. No.

    But as I said somewhere up there it all comes down to how you think
    about the game.
    I sacrifice pieces to get at the King. I don't want them back.
    I don't want to see them again, I don't care about them.
    The only weak squares I want are those around the King.
    I will sacrifice every active piece I have to get at the King.
    I have never seen a positional checkmate.