Originally posted by Paul LeggettI don't think that it is an attempt to divide something holistic.
I 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 th that. It makes it easier to write about in books, and it's certainly easier to understand.
I don't think that it is a dychotomy either.
I think that in every game of chess every move is purely postitional, unless it is also tactical. In other words, any contact between pieces (immediate or threatened) or anything that causes a permanent change in the position is tactical and any move designed to take control of square/s or lines is positional and gaining tempi or material must be both because time and material are aspects of the position but the only way to gain time or matereal is to create threats or contact between the pieces... I think of it like a venn diagram without knowing what the "both" category should be called... We may make an attack on a piece (tactical) while moving a rook onto an open file (positional).
Some moves can be purely positional like 1.Nf3 for instance (I can't consider 1.e4 to be purely positional because it creates a permanent change in the position... the pawn can never go back to e2) but there is no move that is purely tactical.
What I am getting at is maybe we shouldn't try to define a true sacrifice as positional or tactical since the act itself is tactical while the considerations are positional. So, if you please, we'll just call it a sacrifice... but then what is it called when you give up tempi in order to gain material? Which is worth more the tempi or the material? Can I call it a sacrifice if I give up tempi to gain a passed pawn?
Originally posted by greenpawn34"Time can evaporate, it is not a permanent advantage."
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 th ere can be some sacrifices that
may be regarded as positional as well as tactical."
Same can be said about a material advantage... in my games material advantages often evaporate more quickly than time advantages do. Time advantages are more dangerous to weaker players IMO because they often result in quick mates.
Originally posted by tomtom232This is a great read! Chess is an exercise in symbolic logic and spatial relations that is challenging to convert into words sometimes, but the attempt is enjoyable and enlightening.
I don't think that it is an attempt to divide something holistic.
I don't think that it is a dychotomy either.
I think that in every game of chess every move is purely postitional, unless it is also tactical. In other words, any contact between pieces (immediate or threatened) or anything that causes a permanent change in the position is tactical and ...[text shortened]... empi or the material? Can I call it a sacrifice if I give up tempi to gain a passed pawn?
I said it all gets murky and unclear.
Say I sac two pieces. Bang! Bang! just to get the King out in the open.
The win is unclear. The game is about his exposed King and the threats
I can create against it.
Is not having a better king positonal a so called positional factor.
So Bang! Bang were postional sacrifices.
Hey I'm a postional player!! 🙂
"Which is worth more the tempi or the material?"
That Tom Tom is the eternal question, it all depends upon the position. 🙂
The other try at clasifaction:
A sac/combination aimed at winning material or mating the King
is a tactical sac.
A sac/combination aimed soley to get an endgame advantage is positional.
The term sacrifice means you have given up something.
So you have gone into an ending material down. (usually not recommended)
You either win it back (making it a sham sac) or a pawn promotes.
In that case you have played a pawn promo-combination.
Endgame combinations can be easy to calculate.
The game can be reduced to simple counting to see who Queens first.
(Checkmates are the easiest. Game over. No need to think about what
happens after the combo is over. No stings in the tail and you can invest
the entire chess set. If it's checkmate then it's game over.)
You cannot split them into two classes. A sac is a sac is a sac.
Tom tom.
Well put mate but it can turned anyway anyone wants it.
1.e4 cannot be classed as positional.
You have just moved a pawn protected 4 times to a square where it is now unprotected.
Bad postional play?
But it claims space in the opponents half of the board, frees your
hemmed in pieces, (and gives the King a flight square.) 😉
These are Positional considerations.
You can have great fun tarting up chess to make it more than what it is.
It's a game. A beautiful complex game whose aim is to checkmate your opponent.
(every move is positionally weak except checkmate. Tarrasch said something like.)
1.e4 is a Strategic Sacrifice.
You have cannot play e4 (often a centre buster in 1.d4 d5 openings) in that game.
That strategic ploy has been taken away from you. You have sac it.
Of course if your d or or f-pawn captures on e3 then you have e4 options again.
So to clarify. 1.e4 is a sham strategic sacrifice.
(what a load of utter crap.)
(2.Nf3 is not positional, it's anti-positional, you have just blocked your f-pawn. 😉 )
Originally posted by greenpawn34Sacrificing the exchange is often used to get a good endgame, even though it creates the technical deficit of pawn and piece for a rook. Petrosian was the best at this kind of sac.
I said it all gets murky and unclear.
Say I sac two pieces. Bang! Bang! just to get the King out in the open.
The win is unclear. The game is about his exposed King and the threats
I can create against it.
Is not having a better king positonal a so called positional factor.
So Bang! Bang were postional sacrifices.
Hey I'm a postional player!! ...[text shortened]...
(2.Nf3 is not positional, it's anti-positional, you have just blocked your f-pawn. 😉 )
I once read that Petrosian sacrificed more than any other World Champion in terms of "sacs-per-games played", because he sacrificed the exchange so often, but I don't remember where I read it.
Hi Paul.
Yes but these called are 'Exchange Sacrifices' not Postional Sacrifices.
Petrosian had supplied numerous examples against some top class
players. This was his trademark.
When he played one other Soviet players would comment he had infact 'won the exchange!'
"Sacrificing the exchange is often used to get a good endgame."
I'm thinking most have a tactcial root.
The most commone exchange sac is without a doubt Rxc3 in the Sicilian.
I isolated all the Sicilians on my Megabase, then looked for RxN(c3)-b2xR
I have 7,839 examples. White wins = 2841 Black wins = 3321.
RHP has 592 (will be more than that as my RHP DB is about 12 months out of date.)
White wins = 216 Black wins = 312
I'd question the sacs per game ratio to Petrosian as World Champion.
He was champion for six years.
If he out sacced Alekhine. WC for 16 years then I am impressed.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I don't think the terms "exchange sacrifice" and "positional sacrifice" are mutually exclusive- quite the opposite, I believe. In fact I think that may be misleading (edit: by that I mean "confusing" ) to suggest otherwise, but it's somewhat beside the point.
Hi Paul.
Yes but these called are 'Exchange Sacrifices' not Postional Sacrifices.
Petrosian had supplied numerous examples against some top class
players. This was his trademark.
When he played one other Soviet players would comment he had infact 'won the exchange!'
"Sacrificing the exchange is often used to get a good endgame."
I'm thinki champion for six years.
If he out sacced Alekhine. WC for 16 years then I am impressed.
I was going to use the ...Rxc3 sacrifice as the classic example in my earlier post. Sometimes it is part of black's attack when white castles queenside (especially in the Dragon), but it is very often played to accentuate black's better endgame position.
Black tends to have a better endgame naturally in the Sicilian, and the rook exchange sac on c3 tends to create positions where black's minor piece matches white's rook, given the position features that exist after the exchange.
With regard to Petrosian, I believe that the stats were compiled using all their games, not just the ones that they played when they had the title. We tend to think of Tal and Alekhine as "mad sac'ers" because those are the games we see in the anthologies, but they also played many games in a manner we would consider routine. Petrosian tended to play more closed positions, where rook values are more problematic, so he dispensed with them often.
The post that was quoted here has been removedit appears to me that the forum is intent in making the definition more complicated than
it needs to be. A positional sacrifice does not depend on any other consideration other
than its outcome contributes to a positional element, static or dynamic. To add provisos and
special cases is to cloud the matter, to state that all may be considered as positional as
it contributes to the over all position is likewise moot. Present in every chess position
are strategic elements which may be dynamic and/or static and tactical elements, what
is more, a sacrifice by its very nature changes the entire nature and evaluation of
these elements making any designation before and after relative to the sacrifice itself,
thus, an element which may have been positional before is transformed into a tactical
one, or vice versa, a tactical combination produces a positional feature, as both
strategy and tactics are handmaidens to each other.