1. e4
    Joined
    06 May '08
    Moves
    42492
    05 Oct '12 03:26
    Hi Robbie,

    I think so too (though in as many words) πŸ˜‰

    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'πŸ˜‰.

    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?
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    05 Oct '12 03:361 edit
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Hi Robbie,

    I think so too (though in as many words) πŸ˜‰

    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, ... tional war.

    But what about a [b]Positional Combination
    ?[/b]
    I think we should forget about all this Positional or Tactical stuff and just try to determine if a certain sacrifice is good or bad.

    P.S. It doen't mean a rat's arse to me if it is positional, tactical, or whatever, as long as it works.
  3. e4
    Joined
    06 May '08
    Moves
    42492
    05 Oct '12 04:292 edits
    Hi Morq

    Great post. Good game. (not a great game, you a missed massive chance.)
    This what we want, our games.
    Not some game played by some GM. Our games.
    It's our site, it's our thread, it's all about us.

    "plus the RxB exchange sac that offers no immediate calculated payback. "

    It's practically a forced win mate. Sorry.

    I've had postions like this loads of times. The Danish is my blitz rep and
    I used it OTB for years. I flick it on here a few times.

    You go basic threats straight out the beginners book of tactics.
    Direct threats. Don't be ashamed of going direct. It's the best way.

    Don't mess about else he will get organised. Hit him.

    You say you have posted this before.
    Did anyone point out the missed better move here?

    It is ringing bells so I may have said something about it.
    Perhaps the set up is something I've had before and that's
    where I've seen it. Either way it is familiar.

    I've seen this game before with my analysis being played.
    I have 100% seen all the ideas I'm going to show before.

    (I've actually looked to see if Game 8643043 was really this game
    and you and your mate have not found an old game of mine to see if
    I would recognise it. I've played that trick before on a player, he did not
    recognise it as one of his at all.)

    I'm suddenly reminded of a Tal game.
    His opponent asked him why he had not played such a move in the opening
    as his opponent had prepared for it.
    Tal said the move never entered his head.
    His opponent replied, But you played it yourself 2 years ago!


    You played Qe6 but Qg5 is the move.
    A slight nod towards 1.Bxf7+ but I want to show 1.Qg5.

    Attackers 5
    Defenders 2
    (one of the defenders is a Queen) so it is really 5-1.

    Go for the King.
    The Black Queen and Rook are outnumbered by three minor pieces!!
    This must win. You can blast your way in with a sac and still have two
    minor pieces left.

    Go basic threat. 1.Qg5 Let him see it. He has to stop it.

    (By the way I did not go past here so I have no idea if you missed other shots.)

  4. SubscriberPaul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    The Stacks
    Joined
    21 Aug '09
    Moves
    113497
    05 Oct '12 12:25
    Originally posted by greenpawn34



    "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.
    Hi GP,

    Perhaps we differ on what "mutually exclusive" means. When I use the term, I understand it to mean that the two concepts are completely separate, and could never exist at the same time.

    When someone says that an exchange sac is not a positional sac, I take that to mean that an exchange sac could NEVER be positionally based.

    I don't believe that to be true. In my mind, the term "exchange sac" merely defines the relative value of the material traded, but does not define the purpose of the sac.

    I see the two categories as different in nature, and overlapping in terms of whether or not they apply to any particular situation.

    So I suppose that when you say "of course they are" mutually exclusive, we'll just have to disagree on that one.
  5. e4
    Joined
    06 May '08
    Moves
    42492
    05 Oct '12 12:35
    Hi Paul.

    Ah. I caught '"not mutually exclusive' as two different things.
    Got confused.
    Mutually means together, exclusive means different and 'not' is well..not.
    (you are wrting like Robbie) πŸ˜‰
  6. e4
    Joined
    06 May '08
    Moves
    42492
    05 Oct '12 12:37
    Back to the morgski game.

    Found the original thread Thread 142054. September 2011.

    I see the lads went past the critical stage and looked at a later line.

    I wonder why I never said anything back then.
    So I went to look at my September 2011 posts.

    I appear to have become invovled in a massive forum fight around Skeeter
    and some chap, now gone, (but probably back again called Kopatov)

    I doubt if I looked at the posted game, if I looked it was
    most likely at the position the rest of the lads were looking at
    way past the critical Qg5 move

    I'm coming out with comments like:

    -------------------

    Look Mate.

    I don't really care who you are/were.

    But you come wading on here from nowhere with an obvious axe to
    grind hiding behind an avatar. etc...etc...etc...

    -------------------

    Yup that's me, sounds like a good one.

    I've had a tangle with everyone on here but I seem to have taken a bit of
    a dislike to that lad.

    Perhaps I blogged the game.

    morgski did figure in a September blog.
    That was the one where he and his sister played the Icelandic Gambit
    on an Iceberg.
    (Shortly after TimmyBx climbed Mount Evans to play the Evans Gambit...
    ....you guys are all nutcases.) πŸ™‚

    http://www.redhotpawn.com/blog/blogread.php?blogpostid=72

    That was the blog that had the 'Pillsbury Shuffle' and featured this
    incredible piece of chess that alas was not played.

    dk0009 - ljackson RHP 2008



    See we don't GM games. Our games are better than GM games. πŸ™‚
  7. In attack
    Joined
    02 Mar '06
    Moves
    30132
    05 Oct '12 14:01
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Back to the morgski game.

    Found the original thread Thread 142054. September 2011.

    I see the lads went past the critical stage and looked at a later line.

    I wonder why I never said anything back then.
    So I went to look at my September 2011 posts.

    I appear to have become invovled in a massive forum fight around Skeeter
    and som ...[text shortened]... e pot. Amazing.}[/pgn]

    See we don't GM games. Our games are better than GM games. πŸ™‚
    Yep, I remember being pulled up about not fully exploiting the pin of pins involving both the Rooks (I thought my play was sound at this point), but I definitely had not seen the Qg5 route. Now you've shown it, I will try and use it on some poor unsuspecting victim and claim personal excellence πŸ™‚

    I agree about the GM games, I gain more from non-superhuman threads and games (Marinkatomb's recent one is a perfect example) because I am at a level where I can spot a similar rated player's faults and brilliant tactics with due consideration, while sometimes I just don't understand the nuances of games involving people that play so much better chess than I.
  8. Account suspended
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    05 Oct '12 21:31

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

  9. SubscriberPaul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    The Stacks
    Joined
    21 Aug '09
    Moves
    113497
    05 Oct '12 23:27
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Hi Paul.

    Ah. I caught '"not mutually exclusive' as two different things.
    Got confused.
    Mutually means together, exclusive means different and 'not' is well..not.
    (you are wrting like Robbie) πŸ˜‰
    We're good!
  10. e4
    Joined
    06 May '08
    Moves
    42492
    06 Oct '12 00:401 edit
    Hi Duchess.

    I did start by saying.

    "I'm going disagree with you just to show how things can get all
    twisted and upside down. "

    I'm of the opinion there is no such thing as a positional sacrfice.
    A positional combination yes. But sac no.

    " I have been exploring ways to make this informal distinction
    between 'positional' and 'tactical' more meaningful."


    Good Luck.
  11. Subscribermoonbus
    Über-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    8144
    06 Oct '12 15:306 edits
    Perhaps the attached game provides an example of what some here have been calling a positional sacrifice. On move 4 I deliberately left a bishop en prise. At such an early point in the game, I was not reckoning with (calculating) immediate equivalent material return, much less a quick mate. In the event, I got both, but my opponent's moves were not forced--hence the line was hardly calculable. I left the bishop en prise based on the following considerations: a) I judged my opponent to be at least 500 rating points below my strength. b) I judged that, if my opponent accepted the offer, I would have good attacking chances--and this, perhaps, qualifies as a positional sacrifice.

  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    06 Oct '12 20:16

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    06 Oct '12 22:54
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    Give it a rest. We don't care about all the lingo. We are just interested in the game. As EA Sports, Andrew Anthony says, "It's in the game."
  14. e4
    Joined
    06 May '08
    Moves
    42492
    07 Oct '12 10:55
    Hi Duchess

    "I do have a problem with Greenpawn34 implicitly misrepresenting me. "

    I told you I was doing it on purpose to show how eay it is to
    read any position the way you want it to read.

    And I still disagree with the term postional sacrifce it's an oxymoron.
    And I don't care who wrote about it, I disagree,
    A Positional Combination. Yes, sacrifice no.

    You have played a forced series of moves kicking off with the sacrifice
    of the exchange.
    A forced series of involving any sacrifice is a combination.
    A forced series of moves to improve your position is a positional combination.

    The sacrifice of the exchange can be made for any reason.
    It does not have to be positional.

    Mating Combinations

    Material winning combinations

    Drawing combinations, (getting stalemate, oppo bishops etc...)

    Pawn Promotion combinations (close to material winning combinations but
    they have their own unique set of tricks.)

    Liquidation Combinations. Transposing into a clean clear cut won ending
    offering no hint of counter play (often involves a pseudo-sac).
    The one Robbie should have played instead of blundering his Rook and
    calling it 'artistic.'

    Positional combinations. (played to improve your postion)
    Knight outpost, Rooks to the 7th, crippling pawns,

    A positional sacrifce has become part of chess lore but in world were
    players cannot agree exactly what is a combination.
    (does a combination have to involve a sacrifice?)
    then there is little wonder people disagree.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    07 Oct '12 11:28
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Hi Duchess

    "I do have a problem with Greenpawn34 implicitly misrepresenting me. "

    I told you I was doing it on purpose to show how eay it is to
    read any position the way you want it to read.

    And I still disagree with the term postional sacrifce it's an oxymoron.
    And I don't care who wrote about it, I disagree,
    A Positional Combination. Yes, s ...[text shortened]... a combination have to involve a sacrifice?)
    then there is little wonder people disagree.
    As I pointed out before, robbie's rook sacrifice was not the blunder, even though it may not have been the very best move, he could have still won.
    See the repeat of my post below:

    Fat Lady has a point for after 53...Kb3 54. Rb7! b4 55. Kd1 the Black king is forced to c4 to avoid checkmate.

    However, 53,,,Ka3! still wins, because if 54. Rb7, b4 55. Kd1 b3 56. Kc1 Ka2 57. Rb4 a3 58. Rb6 b2+ 59. kc2 Ka1 and the b-pawn queens with 60...a2 61...b1(Q).
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree