Not sure this is what you had in mind, but it came up in one of my recent games:
a question about POSITIONAL sacrifices and sacrifice showcase
Sort:
the halloween gambit, maybe?
I made a positional sacrifice of a knight for two king side pawns earlier today, after my opponent had castled. So it seemed a fairly understandable sacrifice: his king was now completely exposed, my bishop was still up there as well, and I'm down a pawn (a knight in exchange for two pawns.)
But my opponent immediately interjects, (paraphrasing as I don't still have the game in front of me):
"What was that??? LOL. Cmon, play like a man. You've got a decent rating, play like it."
I then took 30-40 seconds or so (in a 15-10 game) to try to briefly explain the concept of a postional sacrifice to him out of courtesy. He continued his verbal swagger for a couple more comments (though nothing overtly rude) as well as sporadically at other points during the rest of the game.
I will be the first to admit, it takes all types to make up chess.com, and this guy was an Aussie, and those folks in general seem to be a pretty tough crowd. But I have to admit his verbal posturing REALLY threw me off my game. My positional sacrifice most definitely did pay off, and he ended up dropping a queen to boot. But I lost nevertheless, in a 74 move game of attrition.
Well anyway, I was going to post this in a new thread on the subject of different personality types at chess.com, as well a discussion of what consititutes appropriate commentary during the game. However, my opponent's reaction typifies how a lot of players (including the opening commentator) are utterly mystified by the concept of positional sacrifice.
Sep 16, 2009
0
#5
After alot of experimentation, I'm very leery these days of making a "positional sacrifice" since I've come to see that I'm still not good enough to normally judge when the sac is good. Sometimes you see the possibility to sac something, but the question of whether it will yield you enough of a positional advantage to compensate for the loss in material is a bit murky. In those situations I try to restrain my impulses. It seems like at least 3/4 of my sacs are bad when I do them.
Sep 16, 2009
0
#6
My favourite positional sacrifice is blacks Rc3 in the Sicilian Dragon, can be played for tactical or strategic reasons or a mixture of subject to the position, mainly against whites queen-side castle but sometimes when white castles king and black wants to prove a point. I'm sorry I don't have an illustrative game though I can suggest a reference, an article a number of months ago on chess.com by Teimour Radjabov, from the black side of the dragon, the game shown included if I recall correctly a double exchange sacrifice and black eventually won with two knights against two rooks. Also can someone please point to the explanation for cutting and pasting games into forum posts. Thanks.
John Boy.
>:)
What made my other thread so popular, I think, is that besides everyone having a point of viewthat they wanted to get across, they also had the opportunity to demonstrate how they put their ideas across. Hopefully, a similar exchange( pun intended) will happen now.
When I first saw people making basic trades, it baffled me. "How do they know how, when and why to trade?" a similar thing happens to me now with positional sacrifices. My understanding of a positional sac( correct me if I'm wrong) is that the benefits are more abstract than a direct combinatorial attempt to win material and/or mate your opponent; that the benefits are part of a long term strategy that a computer, e.g. would never agree with. However, I never see an opportunity to do so, and can't get my head around them . Can someone, anyone and everyone please show me their positional sacrifices and show me the thinking that went behind them. Thank you.