i liked moved 9....d5
gg was cool to look it over
Sacrificing two pieces for a rook and a win
Sort:
Oct 19, 2009
0
#3
Analysis by Glaurung 2.2, 17ply starting after 9. f4
1st match: 19/24 (79.17%)
2nd match: 4/24 (16.67%) (16; .22 differential, 25; .49 differential, 27, 2 move mate differential, 31; 1 move mate differential)
3rd match: 1/24 (4.17%) (12; .27 differential)
4th match: 0/24 (0%)
Lower: 0/24 (0%)
Top 1 Match: 20/24 (79.17%)
Top 2 Match: 23/24 (95.83%)
Top 3 Match: 24/24 (100%)
Not only was your 'sac' perfectly played, but so was pretty much your entire game.
Nice game! I'm not sure I would call trading two minors for a rook and a pawn a "sac," per se (equal material), but it's certainly a winning position for black, either way.
Eebster wrote:
Nice game! I'm not sure I would call trading two minors for a rook and a pawn a "sac," per se (equal material), but it's certainly a winning position for black, either way.
If you look at it in terms of point value, the two sides are equal but generally, two pieces have an advantage over a lone rook, especially as a position evolves. As a result, I think it does represent a sac of sorts, even if it is a short term, more positionally oriented, one.
Gambitknight wrote:
Eebster wrote:
Nice game! I'm not sure I would call trading two minors for a rook and a pawn a "sac," per se (equal material), but it's certainly a winning position for black, either way.
If you look at it in terms of point value, the two sides are equal but generally, two pieces have an advantage over a lone rook, especially as a position evolves. As a result, I think it does represent a sac of sorts, even if it is a short term, more positionally oriented, one.
I guess that makes sense. People will sometimes say things like "sacrifice the bishop pair," or "sacrifice access to the b file," or sacrifices of other minor positional advantages. It still seems a little strange to me, though, since you trade two pieces each of equal total material and gain a positional advantage in doing so. It just sounds like a solid exchange.
Actually in some ending an active rook will beat 2 pieces like active rook vs bishop and knight.
True, but I think those endings are more the exceptions to the rule. Still, I think exchange sacrifice (and even sacrifice) can be a broad term that can be interpreted in different ways. Probably both ways of looking at things are valid (I was just trying to explain my general thoughts as to why I classified it as an exchange sacrifice, though true, it was probably more of a straight exchange).
Still liked the combo though.
Gambitknight wrote:
True, but I think those endings are more the exceptions to the rule. Still, I think exchange sacrifice can be a bit of a broad term (and even sacrifice) can be a broad term that can be interpreted in different ways. Probably both ways of looking at things are valid (I was just trying to explain my general thoughts as to why I classified it as an exchange sacrifice, though true, it was probably more of a straight exchange).
Still liked the combo though.
you say can be a bit of a broad term and can be a broad term in the same sentence!(i spelt that word wrong im sure)
I don't usually get much opportunity to play for tactical complications but in this last game, I was able to sacrifice two pieces for a rook and a decisive attack. It was played on 7 minute time controls on Live Chess settings. What do you think?