It would be interesting to look at concrete examples where you rejected such a sacrifice.
It is easy enough to look at a game after the fact and see if the computer engines would make the same kind of sacrifice.
And right or wrong, what is the point of playing this game if you can't have a little fun?
I can identify with both of your points - when I was around your level I felt the same way.
I think in the end I decided upon experimentation. The only way to increase your feel for when it's correct to trade material for some initiative/time/other positional considerations is to put yourself outside the comfort zone and play a few, see how they turn out. This is the way to grow as a chessplayer, I think.
You may get it completely wrong once or twice and get slaughtered. But equally you may be surprised at how well it turns out in some cases.
I'll also second the call for some examples.
At that level, players only start to develop a sound understanding of positional play. So it is natural that they have difficulties to assess imbalances (such as arising from positional sacrifices) correctly.
But there are some patterns which many 1500s do know: every beginner learns that a pawn is worth three tempos in the opening, Sicilian players know of the typical exchange sac on c3, and many will know the notorious Qxb2/b7 motive.
It would be completely misguided to avoid such sacrifices. If you think that a sac is correct, then you must play it. It is true that you may not find the strongest continuation. but this is also true for your opponent.
Experience is so important in chess. If you refuse to gather experience out of fear, then you also refuse the chance to improvement.
1.) On my level, the positional understanding is just not good enough to evaluate the correctness of a positional sacrifice.
2.) And even if it is objectively correct, it is very hard to find the right continuation to win. One small slip, and the advantage is gone - plus one is down in material. That being said, it is just too risky.
Is it now safe to conclude that any positional sacrifice is unsound at my level unless a winning forcing continuation (=tactically) can be found?
I am very interested in your thoughts on this! :)
How are you going to learn if your sacrifices are correct if you never play them?
I made a positional sacrifice of a pawn recently.
I went on to lose the game, but stockfish gave me a good score for the pawn sac. It was a great learning experience, that I evaluated the position correctly but had poor followup.
When you are an 1850 player and working to move above 2000, you gotta try new things and learn how to handle it.
I've heard of the pawn for 3 tempi, but I've never believed it.
I will always sac material for time if it is justifiable
Well, as I said, those games were casual games. When playing casual games, I always go for the positional sacrifice if possible. For example, I have sacrificed an exchange to put two knights on the 6th rank and won afterwards. But there are also cases where I sacrificed lets say a pawn and then lost after my attack was over.
@notmtwain I don't think you get my point correctly. There might be a sacrifice that a computer would play, but it is hard for someone on my level to find the right continuation. And if I don't find the right follow-up, I am just down in material.
@Tatzelwurm nice name. :p But I am reluctant to play hope chess. I do not want to hope that my opponent plays the non-optimal moves.
Going back to my initial question, is it wise to not make any positional sacrifices on my level in serious tournament play?
I have experimented with exchange sacs in a recent scholastic tournement (the first one was positional - a pawn) (the second one was both positional and tactical Knight for rook) the third was a bunch of tacticals.
I analyzed briefly, and am getting better with them, they all worked (won all rounds) it is ok if <1800, I am now 1590.
Well, as I said, those games were casual games. When playing casual games, I always go for the positional sacrifice if possible. For example, I have sacrificed an exchange to put two knights on the 6th rank and won afterwards. But there are also cases where I sacrificed lets say a pawn and then lost after my attack was over.
@notmtwain I don't think you get my point correctly. There might be a sacrifice that a computer would play, but it is hard for someone on my level to find the right continuation. And if I don't find the right follow-up, I am just down in material.
@Tatzelwurm nice name. :p But I am reluctant to play hope chess. I do not want to hope that my opponent plays the non-optimal moves.
Going back to my initial question, is it wise to not make any positional sacrifices on my level in serious tournament play?
I disagree, if you can see your compensation you will either win or learn from it
Play the Kings Gambit. There are a few well known positional sacrifice lines that are very dangerous. Kieseritsky Gambit line, Rosenreter Gambit, etc.
At <1500 level, opponents facing these against me almost invariably fall quickly. I love when they let me play these lines.
removed