"Sacs" (No, Not the Quarterback!)

Yes, but what I failed to see when analyzing earlier, and still can't see, is what I have after 10. Nxg5 Be7 that makes this line better than 10. Re1+.

Yeah, I suppose that is true...although 11 Qf7+ Kd7 12 Nxh7 does seem (rather oddly) to force 12... Rxh7, after which Black is still all tangled up in a knot.

Well...I think you oughta rethink that a little.  It's true that he played by intuition a fair amount of the time, but his calculatory skills were prodigious.  Just go through his book of the 1960 match with Botvinnik if you want ample demonstration of his prowess in that area.

Or better yet, check out this link (from my old account):

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/how-good-was-tal

I think you're right. Black must play 10...Qd7 which I may or may not have come up with in analysis, it's too long ago to remember. After 10...Qd7 the GK analysis engine gives only +.66. It thinks my 10. Re1+ is dead even. I still think the engine is stupid, and I'm going to try to prove it! I think 10. Re1+ gives white a large advantage, larger than +.66 or +-.01.

Ahh, but I meant crazy in a good way. He certainly was a chessic genious. I originally wrote down "Tal was a lunatic", but I decided that wouldn't be interpreted the way I intended.

I think that's just part of Tal's legend.  I'd be interested in seeing a game of his where he did use an unsound sacrifice.

Only he would know it was... 

 Well put! or as he said himself: "there are sound sacrifices and... there are mine!".

Back to the initial post by ladya79 on beauty and (lack of) understanding, I think we find beauty in a mind construction when we sense something meaningful in it that we are unable to decompose fully on the plane of pure analysis. A mate in 3 chess puzzle involving castle dynamiting sacrifices may be fascinating to the beginner. It may just be trivial tactical execution for some of us. At the other extreme, Tal's tactical prowesses still fascinate all of us at the computer era because of the depth of calculation involved, and yes! we have quite a bit of trouble at determining their soundness without the help of a chess engine (and even then...).

Positionnal sacrifices are not all analyzable to the required depth when occurring in OTB games. I doubt players lacking practical understanding of the thematic or positional notions involved will find any beauty in them: they would not see the meaning of the construction to start off with. Passed that point, I think the beauty is in the fact that an obstructed strategic theme is dis-covered, and again in the player's ability to envision it and to evaluate its soundness at depth (and when it cannot be fully analyzed, in the sense of the game it takes to be convinced it will prevail anyway).

In all cases, there is no such beauty if both players are sharing the same evaluation of the position. It always takes the player on the other side of the board to let it happen, so until chess has been resolved by mathematicians and computers, there is still plenty of beauty ahead of us.

Thanks, ladyline. You explained my line even better than I could! :)

I must admit it first looked like a dubious one to me. You even had AndyClifton confused, although he sounds quite sound :)

Sorry, paul211--I don't sacrifice pieces in my games because it never works! 

To see what I mean about sacrifices being beautiful, watch this YouTube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRsBIEZY1R8