Originally posted by tomtom232sorry, it could be calculated out to a win does not negate the fact that the sacrifice was for positional reasons, the creation of a passed pawn, last time I looked, creation of a passed pawn is a positional feature as opposed to a purely tactical one which simply wins material, i simply don't buy your reasons Tomo, passed pawn is a positional feature, the sacrifice was and is positional.
It isn't a positional sacrifice because it could have been calculated out to a win. A positional sac is usually the sac of the exchange because you are banking on being able to keep the pawns on and the position closed and it doesn't neccessarily mean an advantage, just a difference. Whereas trading a knight for a passed pawn is just a material trade where eas in yours you sacced with the winning goal of promotion, which makes it tactical.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSorry Robbie but I'm with Tomtom. If you can calculate a sacrifice to a winning position, its tactical, not positional.
sorry, it could be calculated out to a win does not negate the fact that the sacrifice was for positional reasons, the creation of a passed pawn, last time I looked, creation of a passed pawn is a positional feature as opposed to a purely tactical one which simply wins material, i simply don't buy your reasons Tomo, passed pawn is a positional feature, the sacrifice was and is positional.
Hi Robbie.
No. The cheif reason being it was not needed.
It aslo appears after Fat Lady's analysis to be more of a blunder than a pos-sac.
There was an easier way to win, the one I have already given in this thread.
Here is one.
This position arose in the game I posted in Thread 148711
B.Keogh - Geoff Chandler Edinburgh 1994. Black to play.
I'm done for.
White has Nd5 with 101 ideas and fxe5 opening the f-file. (that I cannot
allow with my King staying in the centre.)
So the Petrosian in me decided to deal with the threats the only way
I know how. With a club. (there me and Petrosian differ).
Originally posted by greenpawn34not needed? when Morphy sacked his queen although it was 'not needed', did the
Hi Robbie.
No. The cheif reason being it was not needed.
It aslo appears after Fat Lady's analysis to be more of a blunder than a pos-sac.
There was an easier way to win, the one I have already given in this thread.
Here is one.
This position arose in the game I posted in Thread 148711
B.Keogh - Geoff Chandler Edinburgh 1994 . I don't think he would taken the Knight if he had Nd5 and fxe5 to play instead.}[/pgn]
people claim that it was not a positional sacrifice, nay, they were glad for the spectacle!
😛
As stubborn as ever and still trying to get in the last word. 🙂
Which Morphy Queen sac are we talking about?
At the Opera it was part of a combo, v Paulsen it combative.
(and then PCM missed the quicker neater win.)
Nobody is knocking the game, or the attempt to jazz it up.
To me, as I said, the tying down of the two Rooks to bring the King across
to the Queenside in 6 straight moves was jazz enough for me.
Quite a feat ham shanking two Rooks, there is hardly any litrature on
Two Rooks endings. A lot of the popular endgame tomes never even mention it.
I suppsed the plan is to swap off one pair of Rooks and then go into
the technical phase of a pure Rook and pawn ending.
But the timing of this swap is critical as 'All Rook endings are drawn....apparently'
Something like a computer would do it just to get access to it's R v R tabledase.
(I'm not up on tablebases, have they got double Rooks with multiple pawns
cracked yet? If not and when they do THEN we will see litrature dedicated
to Double Rook endings as hacks squeeze the computer analyse in between two
brightly coloured and expensive pieces of cardboard.)
So you were pathfinding Robbie, blazing a new trail.
Now the note will read:
Instead of crowning this strategic masterpiece with a pseudo Rook sacrifice
transposing into a simple win with 50...dxc3. 51.Rxd7 c2.
Black miscaluated with 50...Rxc3 and thanks to his opponents inexact
play only then managed to win it.
Finally. (I'll let you get the last word, after this I'm done with it.)
It was not a positional sacrifice.
(it's important to get the terms right.)
The idea behind was not positional. The position at that time was won.
The only way to win this position.
Is 1.Rd5+
Which is basically what you were trying to do.
That is a promotion combination, not a positional sacrifice.
You now have the technical task of winning that won position.
(not easy, but a book win.)
Originally posted by greenpawn34its my mission to return to the romanticism in chess, Philador has spoiled it all with his
As stubborn as ever and still trying to get in the last word. 🙂
Which Morphy Queen sac are we talking about?
At the Opera it was part of a combo, v Paulsen it combative.
(and then PCM missed the quicker neater win.)
Nobody is knocking the game, or the attempt to jazz it up.
To me, as I said, the tying down of the two Rooks to bring the King acr u now have the technical task of winning that won position.
(not easy, but a book win.)
emphasis on pawns being the soul of chess, pawns are nada, we must play the most
aesthetically pleasing moves, we are chess arteests, we have no time for control
freaks, we play the most daring moves just because we can, you are a chess arteest
GP, i know you know its true! a book win, shame on you GP, we burn chess books
because they limit our freedom of expression, set the controls to the heart of the sun I
say, ((((((((((((bong))))))))))))) 😛
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, we should all play Fischer Random Chess!
its my mission to return to the romanticism in chess, Philador has spoiled it all with his
emphasis on pawns being the soul of chess, pawns are nada, we must play the most
aesthetically pleasing moves, we are chess arteests, we have no time for control
freaks, we play the most daring moves just because we can, you are a chess arteest
GP, i kn ...[text shortened]... f expression, set the controls to the heart of the sun I
say, ((((((((((((bong))))))))))))) 😛
The post that was quoted here has been removedOuch, you are a Kalashnikov AK-47 dear duchess, straight for the heart! I have
absorbed all of what you, fat lady, tomo and hedonist have stated, I agree that there
was an easier and more , shall we say, conventional way to win, amply
demonstrated by tomo initially and reiterated by greenpawn with clarity. Fatladys
insightful comments and analysis I also assimilated and although the position
became a double edged sword, it remained difficult for white and he was as fatlady
commented, unable to solve the problems. Why you should construe that i am
uninterested in learning simply because I contest only the concept of a positional
sacrifice i cannot say. Is independence of mind synonymous with stubbornness? We
are chess players after all and above all else are self reliant, for what else do we
have, but our own minds? I am interested in becoming as strong as is practicably
possible, however, my point is and it appears to me to be little understood that there
is a difference between art and skill and thus we enter the realm of philosophy.
Art seems to me to be concerned with experimentation and is not fully concerned
with aberration, for its a natural consequence of the application of the art that
aberration will occur, skill on the other hand is not concerned with experimentation
at all, but in applying readily defined principles and knowledge to function as
efficiently as possible, thus one can follow a recipe and make a cake, in chess
terms, its termed technique.
Now as far as humans are concerned we understand that chess is neither a pure
science or purely an art, for while it relies upon subtle judgement, intuition,
creativity, experimentation and imagination it also requires a thorough knowledge of
techniques which are gained through study, opening, middle game and end game
theory and principles and all of these experiences, the chess players innate
sensibilities and the knowledge that he or she has gleaned amalgamate in an inner
melting pot to produce an organic whole, the strength of which shall be tested in
praxis.
I tell you this dear Duchess for while it may appear that one is uninterested in
learning how to improve it is not the case, one may simply be attempting some form
of conceptual experiment, or some kind of expression through intuition, or
creativity for creativities sake. One should forget about winning and losing in my
opinion, it detracts and adds a psychological element that is otherwise unimportant
to the quality of ones chess, for there must be winners and losers regardless of how
we feel about winning or losing. Too much egotism is attached to winning or losing
and I cite the example of Boris Gelfand in the last world championship match, he
was entirely unfazed by having blundered and lost the shortest world championship
match ever, realising that stuff happens, but i digress.
In summation, chess is, in my opinion a form of expressionism, like the fauvists who
painted boldly simply because it pleased them to do so, unconcerned with
convention.
