04 Oct '12 01:37>3 edits
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?