When is a sacrifice really a sacrifice?

Rudolf Spielman, "The Art of Sacrifice in Chess", 1995

For what it is worth, I believe that my generation, (and I am well over 70), would have in the past called Carlsen's move a sacrifice, but I think there has been a change in attitude over the years in line with OP's point of view.

There usually has to be a element of surprise in a sac, at least at first blush.

"A bolt from the blue!" Game 46 18th move By Fischer against Benko (My 60 Memorable Games) is one of my favorites.

Resignation followed quickly after Fischer's well calculated follow up moves. 

Looking at the posts whch came in as I was researching mine, perhaps Spielman's work caused the change of attitude to sacs which I was discussing. 

Interesting posts everyone. Anyone found a authoritative definition of the term 'combination' as it is used in chess in any of the more reputable publications?

interesting qu0te by Rudolf Spielman (acc0rding t0 wikipedia(?))  

A good sacrifice is one that is not necessarily sound but leaves your opponent dazed and confused

Have to say I thought 1995 was a bit later than should be expected from Spielmann who I thought was playing some time before that, but the 1920's! Time does fly when you are having fun.  

Apparently, Spielmann (seems to be correct spelling, but could be wrong), was called "the Last Romantic". He had a few quite wins over some good players, like Nimzovich, Reti, and Bogolyubov (hope that is correct spelling).  

my mistake there... just s0me b00k published 1995... als0 there is J0n speelman...born 2 October 1956

Jon Speelman played at the same club (Hampstead in London) as me decades ago. I never got to play him but he seemed like a very nice fellow, preferring to analyze skittles games with his opponents as he played them, rather than bulldozing them with his obviously superior knowledge and skill.

I no longer have Botvinnik's "100 Selected Games", but the introductory material of the book included an essay by Botvinnik in which he attempted to arrive at a firm definition of a combination.

Neither do I. It was a great work, which was one of quite a few valuable books on Chess, Music and Maths which I lost in a fire.

You have ignited sad memories.

Enjoy your rekindled interest in Chess, Old Patzer!

I agree with Tal, and Carlsens sacrifice wasn't  a Tal-sac, because it was sound. It was precise and fast winning.  It was a sacrifice, but it was a 100% safe and fully calculated sacrifice.

Canter, my condolences on the loss of your books. They can be the best of friends to us. As bad as that loss was, I do hope you suffered none greater from the fire.

 I am slowly replacing the books I donated, and Botvinnik's has just moved up on the wish list. I never enjoyed his playing style, but his annotations do provide valuable insights into the process of following the logic of a position.

Camter, I was done in by auto-correct, and I don't seem able to edit the post. Apologies for misspelling your name.

I agree with your definitions. If mate or material profit is finitely calculable, then it's not a real sacrifice.

We could name it a "sham sacrifice", but that term might seem to belittle some very fine chess-play. Call it a combination.

Re: post 23 and 'real' v. 'sham' sacrifices.

I see DBG was quoting from the Wikipedia page on Sacrifice (chess), which in turn quotes from Spielmann's distinction of 'real' v. 'sham'. 

That is an interesting discussion, and there is certainly a distinction to be made between types of sacrifice, but 'real' and 'sham' still seem to me the wrong terms to use. Spielmann was a GM, and well above my modest standard in chess; it is just that choice of terms which seems to me mistaken.

What does it mean to say that a move is a sham sacrifice or pseudo-sacrifice? Is it actually a sacrifice or not? How can you tell? The only way to judge is whether you are surrendering some nominal value (post 14) on that move.

The fact that it is a winning move, or that you win back greater value a couple of moves later by a forced process, does not alter the fact that you had to give up that value in the first place.

If you buy goods cheaply in a wholesale market and then get a higher price when you sell them in your shop, that does not mean that the first transaction was only a sham payment, or a pseudo-payment.

It was a real payment, giving up money value, and I still see any chess move giving up nominal value as a real sacrifice.

Pursuing your analogy, wandle, I'd say that the 'sham sacrifice' (or whatever we call it) is very much like a purchase in the sense that I think you mean in that you are assured of a profit. A 'real sacrifice', however, is much more like a gamble at the bookie's or an investment in the stock market where the outcome, perhaps anticipated by an educated guess, is by no means guaranteed.

blueemu - I agree that the term 'sham sacrifice' does seem to belittle what are some very fine conceptions (like Marshall's). The term 'combination' which encompasses these 'sham sacrifices' (as well as other kinds of tactical sequence, for example those involving freeing actions in which material differences remain unchanged) seems less pejorative, I guess.

still different type 0f sacrifices.  fr0m all sacrifices there are p0siti0nal sacrifices and thats maybe better term. Nezhmetdinov chernik0v  game perfect example 0f great p0siti0nal queen sacrifice. But t0 say that fam0us frank marshalls Qg3 is n0t real, pseud0, 0r sham sacrifice is  n0t right t00... thats a sacrifice in my b00k