in this position black sacrificed THE ROOOOOOOOOOKKKKK !!!!!!!!!🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

                                                         and then he plays rook to f2

                                                         rate this move 0 out of 10 🔥🔥🔥🔥

6 - its quite an easy move to see but if they take you get quite a nice mate

What the hell

Can't u just took the rook and then he place his rook in front of the king and then u took the chance and bam that's a checkmate I think 🤔 what u did is just 😅 not that good it is a brilliant move for computer may be not really May be I m wrong correct me if I m and sorry

Means f8 to f1 then he play b8 by rook then f8 to b 8 and checkmate

It isn't a sacrifice.

Jumping over the f5 pawn is slightly illegal.

Sweet

It isn't a sacrifice since if the rook is taken it's an immediate checkmate. No-one will ever learn to play chess well with this kind of teaching. A sacrifice is when you lose some material and not when you win the game if they take it.

Doesn't sacing mean giving up material for a larger goal? Doesn't checkmate count as a larger goal?

This would be considered a deflection sacrifice

Excellent move my friend

Here's a sac from me I played 2 days ago

No, a sacrifice is not something that leads directly to a better result. That's called something else. It's called a combination. Apparently chess.com haven't learned that yet, which is why I'm saying that they're really bad teachers,

Shadow Dragon - the screenshot or image in your opening post isn't clickable.
Plus the game doesn't show on your Home page.
Can you provide a link to the game or position?
The moves on the image aren't legible.
There's a chessboard symbol button at the left end of the buttons above where you type - for posting chess diagrams and moves.

A combination is a combination of moves, tactical in nature. A combination can lead to material advantage, positional advantage or checkmate. Something like taking a pawn defended by a queen with your queen and if the opponent captures, then you have a knight fork on his king and queen, winning the queen back, so the result is that you won a pawn. That's a combination and so is this. Not a sacrifice.

Combinations can be complex but this one is extremely simple. If he takes your rook he loses the game.

A sacrifice shouldn't lead to an immediate recovery of the material or more. It would be like imagining that if you take his pawn with your pawn and he can recapture, but chooses instead to take your queen, then he just sacrificed a pawn. Teaching people to think like that is bad teaching.

'Sacrifice' is a scalar term.
One could invest much time in its semantics. Or in arguing about them.
Obviously many positions come up where one side can't afford to take something because of consequences immediately or soon to varying degree.
Or thinks one can afford it ... wrongly. And takes. Wrongly.
Or Has to Take! Losingly.
I don't care if there's no word 'losingly'. Doesn't matter.
There is now.

Or the offer of material is unsound or losing.
All these things come up in games and studies.
'Sham sacrifice' is a phrase sometimes used.
Like so many terms in chess terminology - its beneficial to chess teaching that students are made or become familiar with such terms.

Here's a rook sacrifice

yeah, but in this case, there is no immediate recovery of material, he sacrifices the rook to deflect the other rook allowing for a checkmate. There is no immediate recovery of material. And anyway, if it wasn't a sacrifice why did the chess.com analysis system deem it a brilliant?

so, is this a sacrifice or not?