I once sacrificed two rooks for my opponent's two defensive bishops. I wasn't exactly sober when I did so, but his king's position was so open, and my knights and queen aiming right at it, and even though I made a few mistakes after that, I won his queen and rook and all the rest of the pawns (with queen or knight forks) to lead my opponent to resign.
The Art of Gambiting
Sort:
I was the same way.
Even now, I refuse to use a gambit opening, yet I have no problem with sacrificing a rook, bishop, knight, or even a queen for superior position and tempo.
Aug 30, 2008
0
#4
The best way to convince him would be to play him, sacrifice material for a better position, and beat him!! :)
I have done that on many occasions. He sees the compensation, but he just can't pull the trigger on the gambit. I used to be materialistic. I always would wait for somebody to hang material. But as I played stronger players, I realized that I was going to have to outplay them rather than not make big mistakes and rely on my opponent making them. When I was materialistic, I drew a whole lot of games. My opponents didn't make big mistakes and I played too passively to play for the win. But lately, I have seen my draws become scarce.
Materialism is just another style of play, like hypermodernism, or dynamism. In fact, I may once(I haven't yet, but maybe I will one day) even hold onto the queens gambit pawn to prove I can. In fact, if the person with the material advantage can trade enough pieces, the position advantage will slowly disappear and the material advantage will persist.
Material is just one part of the chess whole. It is just one dynamic of combat. If you were to focus on just using your fists while fighting, you may get some knockouts, but you are lacking. Same thing if you used only you feet, some success, but you would fail overall. We need to take all aspects of chess and blend them. When we become attached to things is when we will plateu. Chess is a very flexible thing, and we must learn to know which ideas to apply in certain positions. Never forget the ultimate goal of overpowering the king, that is all there is. There are several different methods to achieve this, but in the end there is only this!
Gambiting could be hard or easy, if you gambit a pawn or give the exchange is usually with the idea of getting a better position, a situation where your opponent would be for instance defending passively while you get more mobility and freedom for your pieces. It's hard to grasp sometimes because it could be different than a direct reward of material, as a tactical blow where you immediately see you'll end better. Sometimes is about opening the board in order to give your superior bishops command over it, or getting a post for a knight, where it could not be dislodged without further lose of tempi or material by your opponent, the general concept is that you gain either a lot of new squares for your pieces and this domination would cause a lot of troubles for your opponent because of the new threats arising dynamically against him. That's probably why is hard to see, because the gambiting player should be able to see and assess this. Apparently the player gambiting is only giving material without an equal material compensation. It's difficult to asses both for the defending party as for the attacker, because it has to be made with accuracy and energy, with a logical consequence of moves, to get really something for the sacrifice, otherwise the gambiteer could find himself only with a deficit of material and no advantage at all. There are players who calculate everything and others who simply rely on his feeling of the ensuing position after the gambit offer.
Good comment! Yes, I definitely think that if you can get an edge in the middlegame, it is nice to have good drawing chances in the ensuing endgame.
I love gambiting, and sometimes even sacrifice pieces! chess is supposed to be fun, and you should play it the way you like :) .
Sep 2, 2008
0
#11
At one stage I had a repertoire of:
BDG as white/Alapin frenchif transposed into french, fantasie variation against Caro Kann transpos
Benko Gambit as black against d4
And Portugese variation in the Scandinavian which can be a gambit in some lines (icelandic gambit)
I see a whole lot of materialism in chess these days. People hold on to their material for dear life at the cost of a worse position. One of my friends has a very tough time gambiting or sacrificing material. He just can't bring himself to give away a pawn if he does not have a definite combination that wins material or mates. What are your experiences with materialism and how can I convince my friend that gambiting and sacrificing is an essential part of chess?