27 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by ChessJesterI suppose I like to keep the definition of 'sacrifice' a bit more open than this, mainly because it is not clear when a sacrifice stops being 'pseudo' and becomes 'real'. If you win material 2 moves later, the 'pseudo' crowd would likely label it as such. But what about 5 moves later? Or 12? Or 25 moves later in the endgame with the pawn that eventually queened?
I think the definition being used here is missing something. I always thought a sacrifice involved a tactical aspiration of some sort. I looked it up on Wikipedia and this is what it says: "In chess, a sacrifice is a move giving up a piece in the hopes of gaining tactical or positional compensation in other forms. A sacrifice could also be a deliberate e the sacrifice will soon regain material of the same or greater value, or else force mate.)...
I don't think a sacrifice for mate should be called 'pseudo'. Often, when those work, the winning side is still down in material in the final position. Clearly this falls under 'other compensation'.
And finally, in a blatant appeal to authority, imagine if Bobby Fischer had smashed Dragons with 'pry open the h-file, pseudo-sac, pseudo-sac, mate!' Loses something, right?
27 Feb 13
1 edit
Hi Viv.
"GP, that bit about "vengence" was just a joke"....I know.
Hi SG.
You are right.
I reckon a pseudo sac is when the idea is to sac say a Knight and its' sole
purpose is to win back the piece improving your position and nothing more.
(sometimes it picks up a pawn. A pseudo-sac to win a pawn.)
The real trouble starts when you have to difine a combination.
Many authors disagree on what it is and should it always start with a sacrifice.
There are three psuedo piece sacs in the first 16 moves in a mainline of the Two Knights.