05 Oct '12 03:26>
Hi Robbie,
I think so too (though in as many words) π
A sacrifice is a sacrifice.
We give them and tactical motifs names so we know right away away what we are talking about.
That is why openings have names. Much easier to say Ruy Lopez than;
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 all the time.
Classical Bishop sac, Phildors mate, Double Rook sac, ....
Mention postional sacrifice and Petrosian's always name comes up when
infact his were exchange sacs.
Petrosian games are the most well known, (that is writers copying from each
other.) I could fill of book of exchange sacs and not mention Petrosian's name once.
Hi Duchess.
I'm going disagree with you just to show how things can get all
twisted and upside down.
A sac is a sac. Leave it at that.
You say the Evans Gambit is not positional.
But after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4
White is going to play c3 and d4 to build a strong centre, also his c1 Bishop
has more freedom.
Strong centre and freedom of pieces with tempo. These are positional considerations.
See how easy it is to justify any move with a positional or tactical slant.
To try claim one is the other and vis-versa is over elaborating.
Coming in from the other angle.
You say the Benko is a positional sac.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 stopping here.
But here after 3...b5. Black is threatening to take on c4.
It is attacking another pawn. That is a tactic. (or do we now have a new term
the 'Positional Tactic'π.
White takes the pawn.....
...and you say Black has compensation of a (lasting) positional nature
(better pawn structure, etc.) .
I'd like to know what 'etc' is.
The Benko (and don't forget it is called the Benko Gambit, not
the 'Positional Benko Gambit' is a dynamic opening full of tactical ideas (etc..)
'Better pawn structure' I see the isolated pawn and I wonder who has the better
pawn structure.
Now I bet you are going to say that you now play a6 and sac the pawn.
Got it.
So to positionally improve your pawn structure you sacrifce pawns.
(Well I must have been a positional player all my life.)
Hi Paul.
"I don't think the terms "exchange sacrifice" and "positional sacrifice"
are mutually exclusive."
Of course they are. Not every exchange sac is based on positional grounds.
I've whacked a Knight on f3 with a Rook plenty of times in a Latvian to
mate in a few.
And I've often allowed a Nc2+ Nxa1 to mate in a few.
They were sacced for tactical reasons to allow me to checkmate the other lad.
(Or do we have yet another new term' The Postional Checkmate'.)
Exchange sacs are not the only positional sacrifice in the deck.
You can sac anything (including a Queen) on positional grounds.
Or claim it has a positional reason.
Rxc3
"...but it is very often played to accentuate black's better endgame position. "
There is that 'often' word again.
Rxc3 in the Dragon is played to get at the White King.
He has too because by the time Rxc3 is on the board White will be advances
towards the Black King down the h-file.
'Often' Dragons with split castling never reach endings, one side has mated the
other or one side has sacced that much it's pointless going on.
If it's not to get at the King (White has 0-0) then 9 times out of 10
it is played to pick up the e-pawn which the c3 Knight was defending.
That is the tactical idea of Rxc3. Removing the defender.
Removing a defender so you can take another piece or pawn is a tactic.
You could say there is no such thing as a Positional Sacrifce.
It's like saying you had war but there was no fighting.
A positional war.
But what about a Positional Combination?
I think so too (though in as many words) π
A sacrifice is a sacrifice.
We give them and tactical motifs names so we know right away away what we are talking about.
That is why openings have names. Much easier to say Ruy Lopez than;
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 all the time.
Classical Bishop sac, Phildors mate, Double Rook sac, ....
Mention postional sacrifice and Petrosian's always name comes up when
infact his were exchange sacs.
Petrosian games are the most well known, (that is writers copying from each
other.) I could fill of book of exchange sacs and not mention Petrosian's name once.
Hi Duchess.
I'm going disagree with you just to show how things can get all
twisted and upside down.
A sac is a sac. Leave it at that.
You say the Evans Gambit is not positional.
But after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4
White is going to play c3 and d4 to build a strong centre, also his c1 Bishop
has more freedom.
Strong centre and freedom of pieces with tempo. These are positional considerations.
See how easy it is to justify any move with a positional or tactical slant.
To try claim one is the other and vis-versa is over elaborating.
Coming in from the other angle.
You say the Benko is a positional sac.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 stopping here.
But here after 3...b5. Black is threatening to take on c4.
It is attacking another pawn. That is a tactic. (or do we now have a new term
the 'Positional Tactic'π.
White takes the pawn.....
...and you say Black has compensation of a (lasting) positional nature
(better pawn structure, etc.) .
I'd like to know what 'etc' is.
The Benko (and don't forget it is called the Benko Gambit, not
the 'Positional Benko Gambit' is a dynamic opening full of tactical ideas (etc..)
'Better pawn structure' I see the isolated pawn and I wonder who has the better
pawn structure.
Now I bet you are going to say that you now play a6 and sac the pawn.
Got it.
So to positionally improve your pawn structure you sacrifce pawns.
(Well I must have been a positional player all my life.)
Hi Paul.
"I don't think the terms "exchange sacrifice" and "positional sacrifice"
are mutually exclusive."
Of course they are. Not every exchange sac is based on positional grounds.
I've whacked a Knight on f3 with a Rook plenty of times in a Latvian to
mate in a few.
And I've often allowed a Nc2+ Nxa1 to mate in a few.
They were sacced for tactical reasons to allow me to checkmate the other lad.
(Or do we have yet another new term' The Postional Checkmate'.)
Exchange sacs are not the only positional sacrifice in the deck.
You can sac anything (including a Queen) on positional grounds.
Or claim it has a positional reason.
Rxc3
"...but it is very often played to accentuate black's better endgame position. "
There is that 'often' word again.
Rxc3 in the Dragon is played to get at the White King.
He has too because by the time Rxc3 is on the board White will be advances
towards the Black King down the h-file.
'Often' Dragons with split castling never reach endings, one side has mated the
other or one side has sacced that much it's pointless going on.
If it's not to get at the King (White has 0-0) then 9 times out of 10
it is played to pick up the e-pawn which the c3 Knight was defending.
That is the tactical idea of Rxc3. Removing the defender.
Removing a defender so you can take another piece or pawn is a tactic.
You could say there is no such thing as a Positional Sacrifce.
It's like saying you had war but there was no fighting.
A positional war.
But what about a Positional Combination?