Anyone got some good games involving a strong sacrifice?
Here are two of my favorite:
Game 2319944
I've posted that one in another thread already
Game 2353753
That one was full of pawn sacs, starting with the King's Gambit opening, then 11. Qxf3 gambiting by d pawn for more development, and ending with 20. Qf2! where 20. ...Bxc3? is screwed over by 21. Qb6+ Kc8 22. Re7! where the line I had prepared was the forced 22. ...Bd4 23. Qxd4 which wins a bishop
sacs, sacs, sacs....
why is it that games arn't considered good unless they have a sac somewhere?
Is there something wrong with forming an attack and mateing without a single sacrifice?
Sacrifices, are genrally just simple tactics, -- clever double threats and deflections, for the most part.
Originally posted by TainoBrothaI fail to see the sacrifice, could you please tell me where it is?
Game 2263137
Here is one of my own games,not that great beacause my opponent was very passive and let me have my way with him:Game 2348977
Originally posted by YUG0slavIMO, the word "sacrifice" is most misused term in chess, the word in most context is a complete oxymoron.
True that there is nothing wrong with winning slow positional games, but if you can get a big advantage with a sac, then why not play it?
if this "queen sac" delivers a forced mate then it is not a "sacrifice", but rather a tactical device to win the game. -- and if it does force mate, then it is a rather effective tactical device.
A true sac is one where its consequences are unknown and/or unfathomable --- but even then, you are sacing with the aim of gaining some compensation. so, that not really a true 'sac' either...
so perhaps the only "true" sac would be simply hanging a Queen?
but while I'm here, I may as well post my own: -
Game 2223319
This game is my best example of a Queen sac - it doesn't deliver mate (with best defence) but it does win huge compensation for the initial loss
15. Nf6 was best, the line I considered was.
Nf6 Rxg7 Qb6? [Rf8? Bxf6+ Rxf6 Rg8+] Rxb7 Qd5 Rf7
-- this line (unlike 15.Kd8) does not lead to forced mate (which I later missed and went on to play a crap endgame {silly 21. Knight sac, instead of Bf3+}...)
Originally posted by ShinidokiI once read this misconseption sumed up nicely, something along the lines of
if this "queen sac" delivers a forced mate then it is not a "sacrifice", but rather a tactical device to win the game. -- and if it does force mate, then it is a rather effective tactical device.
"How can It be called a queen sacrifice, when it wins a whole king"
Originally posted by Poppensepyes....thats exactly what i'm trying to say --- the author of that quote just got a little more poetic
I once read this misconseption sumed up nicely, something along the lines of
"How can It be called a queen sacrifice, when it wins a whole king"
Originally posted by ShinidokiOk, no comments, it's in progress, but he's been refusing to move for the last few days so I'll post it anyway. If this isn't a true sac, then I don't know what is 😛. And yes, the game's a MESS! 🙂
....
If it is benefical then how are you making sacrifices?
Game 2174611
NO COMMENTS. Actually, I think talking about the sac of the knight on move 12 might be ok, but I'm not totally sure. And yes, there's a forced mate unless I've made a HUGE mistake, but no comments on that final position.
BTW: I think I had a plan with that knight sac, but I'm not sure what it was 🙂.
One more thing, 27.Bxf8!, which I had planned out, but forgot when I made my actual move! 🙂
Originally posted by YUG0slavI'm saying the word "sacrifice", chesswise, is an oxymoron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_terminology
you seem a bit disgruntled shinidoki and I can't quite figure out why.
if the word wasn't currently being used I'd suggest calling all "sacs" "exchanges" or "swaps" --afterall, I am tradeing my Queen for mate in 2.