Here's one of my new theories.

Hello everyone.  I have been playing chess for about 8 months now and I have been improving much faster than I expected.  I still have a lot to learn and I still make novice mistakes, but I'm learning.

I have a new theory.  I believe that it is not always IF a piece is captured, but WHERE it is captured and WITH WHAT PIECE it is captured.

I can't find any games that illustrate this belief, but I still think that it is a sensible theory.  If anyone has anything to say, please say it.  I'd like to know if this theory could work!

Could you elaborate ... a theory should be clear ... what you said  starts off like it is somewhere in the middle of a sentence?

Absolutely -- if this were not the case then sacrificial attacks wouldn't be a factor in the game.  As another example, I've won games by sacrificing a rook to my opponent's Queen because it pulled her out of position and rendered her unable to participate in the King's defense once I'd started my attack.  This is the idea behind the tactic of deflection.

What is not clear exactly?

Gambits probably fall under this umbrella as well, although to a lesser extent.  Poison pawns most certainly do.

Thanks for the comments guys.  I have been studying about how to employ sacrifices to gain advantages.  I'm not very skilled at it yet, but I will improve.

This is just something I quickly threw together.  This might not be that great of an example, but I think it illustrates the basic idea I'm trying to convey...at least I hope it does.

Here is probably a better example of what I'm saying.  This is a position that you would much more likely reach in an actual game.

Hopefully I didn't make any mistakes in putting this together.  If I did, please say something.

I know that black can prolong the game, but I'm just trying to understand some of the ideas behind this tactic.