Counting

Can somebody explain this for me?  PLEASE!!!

Using Reinfeld or Kaufman values it looks to me like White wins the exchange and winds up ahead but the text following the chess board image states that "....Black was a little better".

I'm working thru a book on tactics (Back To Basics:Tactics by Dan Heisman) and I don't want to move forward until I understand this.  THANKS in advance!!!

`

...Rxf3 damages white's pawn structure but at the same time loses out if you count points via 5 versus 4.

The whole point is to teach you to trade losing a point for the wonderful benefit of damaging white's pawn structure.

This is a good idea for black and is just like shopping for a bargain. One has to pay money for the bargain but in return aquires a fantastic product.

Don't be afraid to lose points if you get something wonderful in return.

You could Google exchange sacrifices in chess to get more examples.

I clearly understand the point you're making but I don't think it's the answer to my question.  

The chapter is on "Counting" and the text below the board indicates that somehow black is "...a little better, not down a pawn."  Using Reinfeld numbers black is down a pawn after the exchange (5 pawns vs 4 pawns).  Using Kaufman numbers black is down 3/4's of a pawn after the exchange( 5 pawns vs 4 1/4 pawns).

So I still don't understand how the author is figuring that black is "a little better".  I'm assuming he is basing that statement on the math (counting) and THAT is where I'm lost.

Who is better is not the same as who is ahead on points. 

A bit better does not mean ahead in points but it is still wonderful since you damage white's pawn structure.

Still.....the text below the board image discusses the points indicating that the Reinfeld 'math' would have you believe black is "down a pawn".  The author has advocated using the Kaufman values, NOT the Reinfeld values, so he SEEMS to be using this example to indicate the usage of the Kaufman values are more accurate....but even with the Kaufman values white is ahead on points.

Nowhere, in this example, does the author discuss better board position/destruction of pawn structure, etc.  Again...the chapter that this example has been included in is the chapter on Counting.

Again...I totally understand the point you've made (regarding destruction of the pawn structure) but I just don't think that's what the author is trying to impart here....hence my being 'lost'.

These sacrifices are a rare sight and you should not feel ashamed for thinking that a rook being worth more than a knight and pawn means it's not ideal. In most circumstances you can very much just play some other solid move instead of a sacrifice, which at most levels of chess is more risky than it is profitable.

These kinds of sacrifices are real sacrifices. Real sacrifices are sacrifices where the player offering it will be down material for quite some time - unlike sham sacrifices, where the sacrifice will instantly lead to a mating or piece winning tactic.

Real sacrifices often have one of the following reasons:

1. Create a strong attack on the king. The Greek gift sacrifice is a great example of this, and so is the main line of the Fried Liver. After all, you win a chess game by checkmating your opponent's king.

2. A quick lead in development. These sacrifices are usually opening pawn gambits.

3. Some form of a very complicated strategical or positional sacrifice. Things like creating an open file for your rook, having a very strong pin on a valuable piece or, in the case of your example, weakening the opponent's pawn structure. Don't worry, as these kinds of sacrifices usually only happen at IM/GM level.

In short, you have a justified point regarding the counting rule, and it is valid for almost all levels of chess. There are exceptions to the counting rule, but for these 'true' sacrifices - in comparison to the sham ones which aren't really sacrifices - it is not something most people should spend time understanding the concepts or try to look for them. They are just of a very high level.

Wildekaart:  Thank-you.  Your explanation actually matches up with the author's notation (that I didn't include in my original post) where he states:  "The following is an advanced example of an exchange sacrifice that is routinely played by strong players, but usually not even considered by weaker players".

So Dale's point made about the destruction of the pawn structure and your nicely detailed explanation tells me that the author just wasn't 'clear' about what he was trying to impart with this example.

Thank-you...to both of you!

A short addition: this book is trying to teach its readers what it means to sacrifice the exchange. But in order to actually learn something useful from it, you need to understand the fundamentals behind why sacrifices are a thing in chess. Think of it as that you don't always have to be ahead in material to be ahead in the game, to be ahead in development, ahead in king safety, ahead in piece activity. And understand when these advantages are big enough for it to be worth sacrificing the exchange. It requires a very deep level of understanding of many chess concepts, so if it feels like this goes beyond your chess game, you are nothing but right to stick to the counting rule.

Wildekaart:  That seems like WONDERFUL advice to me.........At my level of play....counting is a better decision making tool!