Game 731893
This one was fun...and I don't think the opponant ever saw it coming. It also shows some folks grow too attached to their queen.
Originally posted by KWCoronaI don't wish to rain on your parade, because it is indeed a nice sequence leading up to checkamte, but it doesn't fit the true definition of combination. For it to be a true combination, it must include some form of sacrifice, whether temporary or permanent. I hope that you don't take offense, because it is not my intent to disparage your accomplishment. I just wanted to clarify what defines a combination.
Game 731893
This one was fun...and I don't think the opponant ever saw it coming. It also shows some folks grow too attached to their queen.
Edit: Just noticed that you did hang the g pawn to set up mate-in-2....I guess in that sense, it is indeed a combination.
Originally posted by Natural ScienceThat's a disputed definition. I am one, but not the only one, who disputes it. I think the term 'combination' is much more useful if it refers to "a forcing sequence of moves of benefit to the player initiating it'*. I would prefer to see a distinction between the sacrificial combination and the non-sacrificial combination, rather than between the combination proper (defined by the presence of a sacrifice) and the mere 'forcing sequence of moves of benefit to the player initiating it.' The requirement of sacrifice is arbitrary.
For it to be a true combination, it must include some form of sacrifice, whether temporary or permanent.
* this simple and useful definition is given by Graham Burgess in The Mammoth Book of Chess
Originally posted by Natural ScienceWhoa there! While a combination usually starts with a sacrifice, the sac part is not necessary. In fact, I think even the leaving of pieces en prise is not necessary. The necessary part of a combo is that it should be a forced sequence of moves IMO.
I don't wish to rain on your parade, because it is indeed a nice sequence leading up to checkamte, but it doesn't fit the true definition of combination. For it to be a true combination, it must include some form of sacrifice, whether temporary or permanent. I hope that you don't take offense, because it is not my intent to disparage your accomp ...[text shortened]... ou did hang the g pawn to set up mate-in-2....I guess in that sense, it is indeed a combination.
Originally posted by huntingbearWell then it seems that many GMs are in conflict about this. Yasser Seirawan and many of his contemporaries insist that a combination must include some sort of sacrifice. Also, they would disagree with the part about a combination always being "of benefit to the player initiating it." This eliminates the possibility that a combination may be unsound. If you sacrifice a piece to initiate a series of forcing moves, and your oppoenent finds a brilliant refutation that leaves you with a lost endgame, does that mean it wasn't a combination after all? No, it's still a combination, even though it didn't work. Here's Yasser's final definition:
That's a disputed definition. I am one, but not the only one, who disputes it. I think the term 'combination' is much more useful if it refers to "a forcing sequence of moves of benefit to the player initiating it'*. I would prefer ...[text shortened]... ion is given by Graham Burgess in The Mammoth Book of Chess
"A combination is a sacrifice combined with a forced sequence of moves, which exploits specific peculiarities of the position in the hope of attaining a certain goal."
It seems the one thing we agree on is that the moves in a combination are forcing in nature, in which case the example in this game really isn't a combination. White is certainly under no obligation to commit suicide by taking the poisoned g pawn, nor is he compelled to keep moving his queen to a square where it can be attacked yet again.
Originally posted by Natural ScienceAccording to my notes, the sacrificial nature as well as the forcing nature are not the key elements of a combination, although they are both likely to be present. Idem for tactical calculations.
Well then it seems that many GMs are in conflict about this. Yasser Seirawan and many of his contemporaries insist that a combination must include some sort of sacrifice. Also, they would disagree with the part about a combination always being "of benefit to the player initiating it." This eliminates the possibility that a combination may be unso ...[text shortened]... wn, nor is he compelled to keep moving his queen to a square where it can be attacked yet again.
What is key to a combination is rather general:
1) a sequence of moves (played, or threatened), not just one move.
2) leading to a position where the likely result of the game can be evaluated clearly.
The degree of surprise (pointe), depth (length of the sequence), and number of variations are often indicators of the beauty of a combination.
This is not 'the bible', just another point of view.
Originally posted by Natural Science
Well then it seems that many GMs are in conflict about this.
That's my point. The definition isn't settled.
But here I detect a flaw in your reasoning. You seem to suggest that being more qualified to execute a combination (by any definition) makes one necessarily more qualified to define the word "combination." That is not necessarily true.
Yasser Seirawan and many of his contemporaries insist that a combination must include some sort of sacrifice.
I know. And many past Masters and Grand Masters agree with Seirawan, too. Are you unaware that many other Masters and Grand Masters, past and present, disagree or have disagreed that a combination must include a sacrifice? The have and do, which is my point. The definition is not settled.
Where do you think I got the idea that a combination does not need to include a sacrifice? Some experts say it does, some say it doesn't. I happen to agree with anyone who says it does not, simply because in that case I find the word 'combination' more useful.
Also, they would disagree with the part about a combination always being "of benefit to the player initiating it." This eliminates the possibility that a combination may be unsound.
Does it? Is a toy car, a car? Yes and no. Is a fake diamond, a diamond? Yes and no. Is an unsound combination, a combination? Yes and no. Technically, no. But the way our language works it is more convenient to speak of a toy car and a fake diamond and an unsound combination, rather than to say 'a toy which resembles, in form and function, a car' and so forth.
If you sacrifice a piece to initiate a series of forcing moves, and your oppoenent finds a brilliant refutation that leaves you with a lost endgame, does that mean it wasn't a combination after all?
Yes and no. See above.
Here's Yasser's final definition:
"A combination is a sacrifice combined with a forced sequence of moves, which exploits specific peculiarities of the position in the hope of attaining a certain goal."
I know. I've got two of those books. I have other books by Masters, Grand Masters, and World Champions which likewise insist that a combination requires a sacrifice. I didn't think it should have to come to this, but...
Al Lawrence and GM Lev Alburt, in Playing Computer Chess give this definition: 'A series of forcing moves resulting in any improved position' in their glossary, and this definition: 'the series of forcing moves that lead to an improved position for one player' on page 82.
Edward Lasker, in The Game of Chess, wrote 'A series of forcing moves ... which leads to mate or to the gain of material is called a combination.'
The prolific authors Irving Chernev and Fred Reinfeld, of whom I know you've heard, write in Winning Chess: How to Perfect Your Attacking Play, that 'There has never been a good definition of the word combination. We can come close to the real meaning by saying that a combination is a series of forcing moves which result in checkmate, gain of material, or improvement in position.'
Walter Meiden and former World Champion Max Euwe claim that 'By a combination we mean a short part of the game within which a certain purpose is attained by force.'
And there are other examples. Why did I not want to have to do this? Because it doesn't prove anything except my primary point: that the definition of the word 'combination' is not settled.
I happen to think the word combination is most usefully and accurately defined by these three elements:
1. a series of moves
2. forcefulness
3. gain for the initiator
I think it is most useful to conceive of unsound combinations as being combinations only in the same sense that false teeth are teeth. They really aren't, but it's most convenient to phrase it that way because any other phrasing would be ridiculously cumbersome.
It seems the one thing we agree on is that the moves in a combination are forcing in nature, in which case the example in this game really isn't a combination. White is certainly under no obligation to commit suicide by taking the poisoned g pawn, nor is he compelled to keep moving his queen to a square where it can be attacked yet again.
I never commented on whether the example in this game is a combination, by any definition of the word. I only commented on the definition of the word 'combination.' In fact, I never looked at the game in question until after making my post.
I think the forcing thing is the difference between a combination and a trap. If you make a sacrifice which your opponent has to take, because they're facing massive harm if they don't, that's a combination. If you make a sacrifice which your opponent doesn't have to take, but it's just oooh so tempting, that's a trap, rather than a combination.
So, for example, my "rook sacrifice" Game 715945 in this game was a trap, not a combination, because my opponent didn't have to go for the tempting-candy fork.
Just my 0.02..
Originally posted by Mephisto2
According to my notes, the sacrificial nature as well as the forcing nature are not the key elements of a combination, although they are both likely to be present.
Further support for the point that the definition is not universally settled.
What is key to a combination is rather general:
1) a sequence of moves (played, or threatened), not just one move.
2) leading to a position where the likely result of the game can be evaluated clearly.
I love the point that the combinational moves need not actually be played, but could be merely threatened. I remember reading once that it is a myth that positional players aren't tactical players. To find their tactics, you sometimes need to read their analysis 🙂
Originally posted by dfm65From what I can see, that counts by any definition I've ever read.
so, would this count?
Game 597988
Very nice.
Originally posted by Natural ScienceMy apologies for the misuse of the term. Accurately, I would say it was a very quick rebuke of overzealous greed.
I don't wish to rain on your parade, because it is indeed a nice sequence leading up to checkamte, but it doesn't fit the true definition of combination. For it to be a true combination, it must include some form of sacrifice, whether temporary or permanent. I hope that you don't take offense, because it is not my intent to disparage your accomp ...[text shortened]... ou did hang the g pawn to set up mate-in-2....I guess in that sense, it is indeed a combination.
Originally posted by KWCoronaNo apologies are necessary. I should apologize to Huntingbear for being so dogmatic in my definition. I realize now that there is no standard way to define the term "combination", leaving it wide open for interpretation. My definition is no better than yours', or anybody elses.
My apologies for the misuse of the term. Accurately, I would say it was a very quick rebuke of overzealous greed.
It's pretty close to a combination, by the definition that a sac is unnecessary - which is the one I use. I didn't delve too too deeply into it, but I don't see any way that White could have come out of that (after 7...Bd6) without giving up something, whether it be tempo, material, the initiative...So it could have been a combination with the objective of getting the least advantage that White would have to give Black, and anything more would have been the result of traps within the combination.