Originally posted by YUG0slavnice!!!
Game 2377606
I love this one, 30 min of calculations leading to a double rook sac win.
Here's an easy sac, but I thought it was quite nice...
Game 2189747
I'm playing black, move 16... can you see it?
In case it hasn't already been mentioned, it is simply wrong linguistically to say that a "sacrifice" is not a sacrifice if it brings greater benefits. In fact, it is inherent in most uses of the word that it will, as in:
1) The infantry was sacrificed to allow time for the cavalry to arrive
2) I sacrificed being captain to concentrate on my exams
3) Jesus was sacrificed on the cross...hang on I had better not go there
Why did Romans offer "sacrifices"?
Though I hate dictionary definitions, it supports this view.
Originally posted by ShinidokiAt one point Capablanca was asked something along the lines of how many candidate moves he calculated (and how far ahead) and what was the difference between him and an amatuer.
and my other axe to grind regarding "sacs" is why they are regarded in such with such awe? - why are players so proud when they sucessfully sac a queen? why is that game held with higher regard and with such reverence that all their other games are little in comparision?
His response was I only calculate 1 move, but it is the right one!
The point I am leading up to is that we are not robots to endlessly calculate thousands of variations. Instead, based on general principles/experience we calculate from just a few candidate moves that look promising. 99% of the time, that means that we ignore all sacrafices because they just don't look promising on the surface. Hence, "sacs" are awe inspiring because someone took a move that most of us rejected immediatly and found it to be winning. Anyone can find and play Nxc7+ winning the exchange and a pawn, but to find Qxf7+ with a sacrafice leading to mate is truly impressive.
Originally posted by ShinidokiI guess someone may have pointed this out already, but how does black avoid mate after 21 a5! to block the flight square to b6?
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) ...[text shortened]... I later missed and went on to play a crap endgame {silly 21. Knight sac, instead of Bf3+}...)
Originally posted by zebano
At one point Capablanca was asked something along the lines of how many candidate moves he calculated (and how far ahead) and what was the difference between him and an amatuer.
His response was I only calculate 1 move, but it is the right one!
The point I am leading up to is that we are not robots to endlessly calculate thousands of variations. Instead exchange and a pawn, but to find Qxf7+ with a sacrafice leading to mate is truly impressive.
This is a position taken from a simul played in 1927.
Capa (white) vs. Souza
White to move and has mate in 9. (although there is mate in 8 as an alternative solution)
because it is so long, and because the defence played in the game was a little sub-optimal (although best defence still loses), i'll give you a little helping hand.
black's third move was Qc5.
Or how about....(this one is also a lot easier)
Netto-Abende, played in 1988
Black to move and mate in 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------
these two are my favoirte examples I have ever seen, and they do illustrate how "sac's" can be amazing, when sac's are played to this deepth (or more) then i do have great respect for them, however, "Qxf7...mate in 2" I find somewhat uninteresting unless it was part of a much more 'intricate' combination.
I also have little interest in asthetic 'sac's' when a simple Ra7 or something would have sufficed.
When the peoples of RHP start to sac like one of those examples is when I'll really shut up and listen.
Originally posted by ShinidokiNice position - I think it's relatively easy because all White's moves are forced:
Or how about....(this one is also a lot easier)
[fen]2b1r3/1p2qpkp/2p3p1/4r3/R4Q2/2P2RP1/P1B2P1P/6K1 b - - 0 1[/fen]
Netto-Abende, played in 1988
Black to move and mate in 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------
these two are my favoirte examples I have ever seen, and they do illustrate how "sac's" can be ama ...[text shortened]... RHP start to sac like one of those examples is when I'll really shut up and listen.
1. ... Re1+
2. Kg2 Rg1+
3. Kxg1 Qe1+
4. Kg2 Qf1+ The key move!
5. Kxf1 Bh3+
6. Kg1 Re1 mate
Originally posted by chessicleI sac'd the Queen and by move 18 I had won back what I originally sacrificed, so I was left with a 3p+K+B advantage.
I guess someone may have pointed this out already, but how does black avoid mate after 21 a5! to block the flight square to b6?
Not giving back the queen would have lost to (17. Bf4+ Ka7 [Qc7] 18. Bf3+ Kb6 19. Rb7#
because I had such a large material advantage I got board and had no interest in the game, consequently, my play because rather sloppy and sluggish, from move 18 on.
which is a bit of a pity, because otherwise it was a nice game....
anyway.
I played 22. a5 ... so do you mean that I should of played a5 instead of my stupid knight sac? (or was "21" a typo, and you meant "22"?)
If you mean 21. a5 then yes, you are correct as it does mate.
but I prefer;
21. Bf3+ Kb6 [Rc7 Rxc7+ Kb8 -- loses another rook, but does prolong mate] a5#