Originally posted by greenpawn34It seems the modifier "positional" is used mainly in the absence of immediate tactics. It reminds me of Yermolinsky's "spit and polishers" - guys who were proud of their ability to win without using many, or any, tactical motifs.
I see I have been mentioned in this thread so
I can take that as an opportunity to join this thread.
The trouble I, and others, have is with the term 'positional sacrifice'.
Let us look at the [b] Oxford Companion to Chess
one of the most meticulously researched books on the subject of Chess.
In the section titled Positional Play
H ...[text shortened]... I have to get at the King.
I have never seen a positional checkmate.[/b]
Originally posted by SwissGambitIt appears to me that the term positional sacrifice must relate to the creation of a
It seems the modifier "positional" is used mainly in the absence of immediate tactics. It reminds me of Yermolinsky's "spit and polishers" - guys who were proud of their ability to win without using many, or any, tactical motifs.
positional feature of some kind, a passed pawn, isolated pawns in the opponents
position, the domination of a colour complex etc etc, whereas a tactical combination is
essentially concerned with the gaining of material or forcing mate.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt must be a sacrifice first before it can be tactical or positional. When end up even in material in a forced (tactical) sequence it can hardly be called a sacrifice.
It appears to me that the term positional sacrifice must relate to the creation of a
positional feature of some kind, a passed pawn, isolated pawns in the opponents
position, the domination of a colour complex etc etc, whereas a tactical combination is
essentially concerned with the gaining of material or forcing mate.
Originally posted by tomtom232hardly, ever heard of the concept of a temporary sacrifice, I have and I am sure
It must be a sacrifice first before it can be tactical or positional. When end up even in material in a forced (tactical) sequence it can hardly be called a sacrifice.
that I did not make it up, never the less, seeing that some are having trouble with
the concept let me illustrate it for you with an excerpt from one of my recent games,
a temporary positional sacrifice, I am black,
bishopfellwalker v robbiecarrobie
note to would be posters, now while I understand that ones preconceptions may be
challenged by the subtle conceptual ideas under discussion, please try refrain from
getting personal, this is a chess forum, not the bitchin forum, 😛
Originally posted by robbie carrobieA temporary sacrifice is an oxymoron obviously thought up by a chess player. You cannot temporarily sacrifice something else it is not a sacrifice.
hardly, ever heard of the concept of a temporary sacrifice, I have and I am sure
that I did not make it up, never the less, seeing that some are having trouble with
the concept let me illustrate it for you with an excerpt from one of my recent games,
a temporary positional sacrifice, I am black,
bishopfellwalker v robbiecarrobie
[pgn] [Even ...[text shortened]... frain from
getting personal, this is a chess forum, not the bitchin forum, 😛
Think about it... to make a sacrifice you must be giving something up, not trading.
Originally posted by tomtom232of course you can, when giving up something one does so under the premise that one
A temporary sacrifice is an oxymoron obviously thought up by a chess player. You cannot temporarily sacrifice something else it is not a sacrifice.
Think about it... to make a sacrifice you must be giving something up, not trading.
shall get something in return, that the material may be redeemable is not the issue nor
the defining criteria of a sacrifice, the resulting position is. It appears to me to be
ultimately limiting the idea that one must give up something in its entirety for it to be
designated a sacrifice, for clearly we are expecting something in return, are we not?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think you are misunderstanding the word sacrifice.
of course you can, when giving up something one does so under the premise that one
shall get something in return, that the material may be redeemable is not the issue nor
the defining criteria of a sacrifice, the resulting position is. It appears to me to be
ultimately limiting the idea that one must give up something in its entirety for it to be
designated a sacrifice, for clearly we are expecting something in return, are we not?
Definition of SACRIFICE
1
: an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar
2
: something offered in sacrifice
3
a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost <the sacrifices made by parents>
4
: loss <goods sold at a sacrifice>
now 1 and 2 tell me what a real sacrifice in chess is... when you give up your queen to caissa in order to earn her favor. These true sacrifices end in the loss of the game.
If you are expecting a return it is not a sacrifice if you are giving up material for the sake of the position you are sacrificing material... if you trade material and end up with a better position you have not sacrificed anything.
Originally posted by tomtom232tomo, you have simply chosen the top two explanations which appear to you to be
I think you are misunderstanding the word sacrifice.
Definition of SACRIFICE
1
: an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar
2
: something offered in sacrifice
3
a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost <the sacrifices made by p ...[text shortened]... ial... if you trade material and end up with a better position you have not sacrificed anything.
expedient for illustrating your case, the fact of the matter is, in chess, we sacrifice for
something in return, sacrificing for nothing in return is termed a 'blunder'! you know its
true. Can i get a witness? 😛
Hi luke myster
You cannot just appear, post a GM game with no notes and tell us to check out 17.Rxb7!
You might as well take us to a nuclear power station and say "OK dismantle that."
Just because some of the lad are throwing the word 'positional' around
like it was a christmas gift to chess it does not make any of us any stronger than you.
Anyway I checked out 17.Rxb7!
So which came first the chicken or the TN?
This exact same position was reached in two games in 1994.
Both White players played 17. Rxb7.
Zoran Grujic vs. Trajko Nedev, Vrbas 1994 (½ - ½ )
Garry Kasparov vs Alexey Shirov, Horgen 1994 (1-0)
The Kasparov game is worthy of deep study to show you how strong
such a d5 Knight is. Infact it's so strong that any reasonable player should
and would consider playing 17.Rxb7 here.
If analyse finds a flaw then it fits in with Speilmann criteria for any sacrifice.
It should contain an element of surpise and if there is a correct defence it
should be hard to find. These are called Spec-sacs.
The Penguin Encylopedia of Chess by Golembek
has this explantion of a positional sacrifce.
"A type of exchange combination in which a piece generally of a greater value
than the one (or ones) obtained for it is offered because in the particular position
other considerations reduce it's vale and make it equal or nearly equal to what
is obtained in the exchange."
And that is word for word what it says.
Is it any wonder this term is 'Fuzzy'.
Hi Robbie & Tom Tom
The word and technical term is pseudo-sacrifice.
It's basically an exchange, you get the piece back.
You sac a piece to improve your position with the full intention
of winning it back.
It's most commonest form is in a short tactical trick to nick a pawn.
Once again RHP will furnish an example - two pseudo-sacs in the same game.
rdharan67 - Speedy Gonzalez RHP 2007
(most of you guys should be named after a cartoon character) 😉
Hi Robbie.
Sorry mate, cannot give you the positional sac, temporary or otherwise
in that posted game. White blundered into a bad postion.
You are right though, Black does indeed have an excellent position after 9 moves
you just appear to have messed is up. 😉
It was White who infact played the Positional Sacrifice - a term which I still
fail to agree with.
Here is the full game. (Robbie stopped just before it got interesting.)
bishopfellwalker v robbie carrobie RHP 2011
(sorry about all the edits - I posted without preview and am noting it up
as I go along. Usually I post preview - note it up and then post.)
Originally posted by greenpawn34bishopfellwalker and myself will exchange notes GP, while my opening play was inspired, I blundered a piece with an automatic castling move and should not have recovered, white should have won that game in my opinion. Whites play was inspired, he really did offer a positional sacrifice that was excellent rook for knight leaving my bishop looking like an RJH that has been sent to stare at the wall with a dunces hat on. You are of course correct white needed to play d3, but its not an easy move to see.
Hi Robbie.
Sorry mate, cannot give you the positional sac, temporary or otherwise
in that posted game. White blundered into a bad postion.
You are right though, Black does indeed have an excellent position after 9 moves
you just appear to have messed is up. 😉
It was who infact played the Positional Sacrifice - a term which I still
fail to ag ke a Black tap in.} 35. Ke1 hxg4 36. hxg4+ Kg7 37. Nf4 Kf7 38. Qf2 Rh8 {White resigned.}[/pgn]
Here i reproduce the notes in abbreviated form sent to me by bishopfellwalker and I
apologise for they do not do the copious research and attention to detail in the
evaluation of the resultant positions justice. I wish these pgn diagrams would
support multiple variations.
bishopfellwalker (1678) v robbie carrobie (1727)