Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Third Brilliancy Prize

  • benws
  • | Apr 3, 2013

Here is something you don't see very often...

On the 17th move of the game, Tartakower decides to sacrifice his rook for a few pawns. Although his attack seems to go nowhere, he then calmly completes his development. Eventually, he is able to use all of his pieces to break through Maroczy's kingside fortress. This is what Tartakower had to say about the game:

"The judges awarded this game the third brilliancy prize, although a majority of them declared in peremptory fashion that such sacrifices are incalculable in advance in all their ramifications and that, in consequence, they deserve no encouragement."

What do you think?

P.S. If you're wondering what games recevied the first and second brilliancy prizes, I plan to post those later.

P.P.S. Due to the dearth of April Fool's jokes from the chess.com staff, I would like to share one of my personal favorites. You can find it here.


  • 2 years ago


    36.Kg1 Ne2+ and then Qh5 is mate...

  • 3 years ago


    that is so awesome

  • 3 years ago


    What a BEAUTIFUL & BRILLIANT game by BLACK!!!

  • 3 years ago


    25. Rg2 or Rh2 and black is only marginally better. White's game went downhill after the actual move.

    At move 34 white was in big trouble anyway, but 34.dxe5?? just gave the game away.

  • 3 years ago


    Sometimes taking a risk makes for a very dynamic and interesting game. I believe it better to have fought and lost, than not to have fought at all. So when you win, the victory is all the sweeter.

  • 3 years ago


    The rook for a few pawns is a bit misleading.  The rook is sacrificed for the 3 pawns in front a castled king and this leads to a raging king side attack.  The rest of white's forces are trapped behind a huge black space advantage.  Still, this is braver play then anything I've tried or played against in a long time.  Love to hear from you more advanced players on the proper thought process for something like this.  At my level, these attacks tend to peter out due to inaccurate calculation or inability to continue to sacrifice more material as in move 28....Rxf1.  By the end of the attack, he is down a rook.  So what's Tartakower thinking on move 17?  Is he thinking in general terms, aka, Rook is worth less than 3 king pawn + attack + space advance?  Or is he thinking he has more attacking pieces than defending pieces?  Or has he calculated deep concrete lines and realizes by move 17 that his attack can not be stopped?

  • 3 years ago


    Actually my coach showed this game and gave clear variations and principles why black' is winning?

  • 3 years ago


    wow, I saw this game in my combinations book. did'nt seem that hard

  • 3 years ago


    I don't understand White's moves 22 and 23.


    Me too.  :(

  • 3 years ago


    Oh no, I've been Rickrolled. 

  • 3 years ago


    "They deserve no encouragement."  Bwahahahahahahahaha! 

  • 3 years ago


    <a majority of them declared in peremptory fashion that such sacrifices are incalculable in advance in all their ramifications and that, in consequence, they deserve no encouragement> - amazing how many very silly people play this great game Yell btw rybka has it basically equal after 17...Rh2, and it's an absolutely normal/natural move. white started to go downhill with 25.Bc3?, but black played the attack more-or-less perfectly

  • 3 years ago


    Au contraire, incalculable sacrifices are the ones demanding courage, and therefore deserving encouragement.

Back to Top

Post your reply: