The post that was quoted here has been removedThese kinds of threads are always linguistically tough, especially among international players.
In my mind, any of the four tactical conditions being met means that the sequence is a combination, but not a sacrifice.
It seems particularly true of 1, since a forced mate trumps everything. If the move played wins by force in the shortest number of moves, it is simply the most correct move, and other moves would range from less accurate to outright blunders, depending how far off target they are.
I suppose we should clarify the definition of sacrifice to minimized the semantics. Rudolf Spielman is a good place to start, which is where the wikipedia entry on sacrifices begins:
Rudolf Spielmann proposed a division between sham and real sacrifices:
In a real sacrifice, the sacrificing player will often have to play on with less material than his opponent for quite some time.
In a sham sacrifice, the player offering the sacrifice will soon regain material of the same or greater value, or else force mate. A sham sacrifice of this latter type is sometimes known as a pseudo sacrifice.
In compensation for a real sacrifice, the player receives dynamic advantages which he must capitalize on, or risk losing the game due to the material deficit. Because of the risk involved, real sacrifices are also called speculative sacrifices.
Here is the link for the full wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice_(chess)
Originally posted by Paul LeggettExcellent contribution!
These kinds of threads are always linguistically tough, especially among international players.
In my mind, any of the four tactical conditions being met means that the sequence is a combination, but not a sacrifice.
It seems particularly true of 1, since a forced mate trumps everything. If the move played wins by force in the shortest number of ...[text shortened]... re is the link for the full wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice_(chess)
The post that was quoted here has been removedYeah, I think I did not fully consider what "attacking chances" means.
The word "chances" implies uncertainty, and uncertainty involves risk. We use the word "risk" to assess actions where the outcome is unclear, and I would call that a sacrifice.
In my mind, attacking chances that do not have a particular tactical sequence in mind strike me as being more positionally-based rather than tactical. My thinking is that there are positional aspects of the sacrifice (weak squares, weak pawns, open lines, etc) that offer attacking chances that cannot be supported by concrete tactical proof at the time the move is played.
I fully recognize that my concept is fuzzy, so I would not expect everyone to necessarily agree with it.
Originally posted by Paul LeggettPerhaps we could just agree that there can be some sacrifices that may be regarded as positional as well as tactical. 😏
Yeah, I think I did not fully consider what "attacking chances" means.
The word "chances" implies uncertainty, and uncertainty involves risk. We use the word "risk" to assess actions where the outcome is unclear, and I would call that a sacrifice.
In my mind, attacking chances that do not have a particular tactical sequence in mind strike me as b ...[text shortened]... ize that my concept is fuzzy, so I would not expect everyone to necessarily agree with it.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI think that's pretty close, and I hope I can elaborate reasonably. Essentially, I think real sacrifices are basically positional, whereas moves with a calculable result are sham sacrifices.
I consider all sacrifices to be essentially positional because they change the game to create a position with opportunities or considerations in exchange for the material offered. Those considerations could be tactical in nature, but they stem from the resulting position, not from a discrete sequence of moves, which is why I consider them to be positionally-based.
I think my view may cause confusion because I view the positional/tactical dichotomy as false-an attempt to artificially divide something holistic.
I think most people go with the idea that "a sacrifice for an attack is tactical, and a sacrifice for a better ending is positional", and I'm good with that. It makes it easier to write about in books, and it's certainly easier to understand.
When I started to read this thread I just knew the first game posted
would a GM game. 🙁
We don't know why Black played Rxf3 we just know he did.
These positional sacs are not the preseve of GM's.
Come on boys (and girl) you will have examples from your own games.
Most of mine are spec-sacs. I've tossed something to get muddy waters
and the theme was tactical.
"Perhaps we could just agree that there can be some sacrifices that
may be regarded as positional as well as tactical."
Well put RJ. The exact classification is very murky.
You sacrifice not to gain material or carry out an immediate attack on the King.
(but sooner or later you will have to attack the King - see the rules about
winning the game. It ends in checkmate.)
You have sacrificed to get a postional advantage.
Gaining space, control of the centre, freeing your pieces, hemming
his in, crippling their pawns, gain a Knight outpost, to seize an open file. (and keep it).
You sacrifice something to get a solid positional advantage.
You could argue that an opening gambit is a positional sac.
I'd say on the whole no.
For a start most will be backed up with theory.
I have not sacced anything if I'm following theory, someone else did,
I'm just copying him.
Most opening gambits are based on tempo or a gain of the initiative.
Would you class tempo as a positional advantage?
I say (IMO) no. Time can evaporate, it is not a permanent advantage.
A positional advantage however is permanent. It can last for 30-40 -50 moves.
It may take that long to realise it.
Games where tempo is the overriding factor are over under 20 moves max
and are usually tactically based shooting at the King all the way.
However you can use the opening tempo you gain by say saccing a pawn to set
up a permanent positional advantage. (see what I mean about murky.)
The Initiative. You sac for the iniative.
Can you have the postional initiative?
Yes. but you can also have the initiative but not the better long term position.
(more murk).
A genune postional sac (again IMO) is where you sac something
to get a good middle game position.
A position that you cannot possibly see or calculate everything that will happen
(a spec sac without the attack.) 🙂
You use this position to keep the lid on him and at the same time swinging
all your pieces onto there best squares. Then you strike.
But having read all that woffle, RJ still sums it up best.
""Perhaps we could just agree that there can be some sacrifices that
may be regarded as positional as well as tactical."