The ultimate positional sacrifice

I have found it dear friends, the definitive positional sacrifice, check it out, 16.Ne6




Jan Smejkal v Lev Gutman 1985

As beautiful as this is, i have to go with Kasparov...

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I am glad you asked, because not only does it leave the entire complex of white squares in blacks camp weak, it also leaves black with three isolated pawns, with a queen and rook on board, one rook on the seventh, the ultimate positional sacrifice. The fact that white can regain the material is irrelevant, at worst it my be termed a
temporary sacrifice.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

its not absurd, its a brilliant move which temporarily sacrifices a knight for the gain of
every white square in blacks position and saddles black with not one, not two, but three
isolated pawns and lets white put a rook on the seventh, i challenge you to find any
other sacrifice, temporary or otherwise which accomplished this much and your queens
gambit is not valid, for it results in no concrete positional features, like a rook on the
seven, three isolated pawns and the domination of an entire colour complex, all it
results in is a gain of material.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I have neither misrepresented what you have stated nor am i being facetious or
disingenuous, there are two parts to my assertion, one that your claim that my claim of
it being a brilliant positional sacrifice is absurd, when clearly its a perfectly logical
assertion demonstrated in the example that I have given in which the fact that it was a
temporary sacrifice does not negate (in my opinion) and secondly the example that you
gave is not valid because the resultant position contains no positionally decisive
features, but a gain of material and it cannot therefore be considered to be a positional
sacrifice at all.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

flip sake, you are on a rampage, its not that big a deal, i don't know what you do to
relax, but please do it and for the record i have put no words in your mouth, I fully
read, assimilated and understood what you said, i just don't happen to agree with it, i
have not ignored anything that you have written and yes i do a great line in nonsense,
its probably one of my truly endearing qualities, but i understand that not everyone likes
free form jazz, and I can improve immensely at chess, being written off and
disheartened in this way is an incentive to improve although I am not motivated by
egocentricities or attacks upon my person and nowhere have i claimed that i know
everything or that I am infallible. If you could be a little more convivial Duchess64 and
a little less inclined to jump to conclusions it might help your case, just saying.

😴

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
flip sake, you are on a rampage, its not that big a deal, i don't know what you do to
relax, but please do it and for the record i have put no words in your mouth, I fully
read, assimilated and understood what you said, i just don't happen to agree with it, i
have not ignored anything that you have written and yes i do a great line in nonsense, ...[text shortened]... ss64 and
a little less inclined to jump to conclusions it might help your case, just saying.

I get the impression Duchess64 is a high class broad.

YouTube

Yeah so i'm not gonna bother reading through that wall of text above me but I'm guessing it's mostly to do with Ne6 not even being a sacrifice. White wins back his material by force.

That Robbie literally states "the fact that white can regain the material is irrelevant" is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I really hope English is not your first language. I sacrificed brain cells reading that Robbie. I can't get them back.

Originally posted by Hiyah
Yeah so i'm not gonna bother reading through that wall of text above me but I'm guessing it's mostly to do with Ne6 not even being a sacrifice. White wins back his material by force.

That Robbie literally states "the fact that white can regain the material is irrelevant" is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I really hope English is not your first language. I sacrificed brain cells reading that Robbie. I can't get them back.

No, robbie is Scottish, I believe. 😏

I see I have been mentioned in this thread so
I can take that as an opportunity to join this thread.

The trouble I, and others, have is with the term 'positional sacrifice'.

Let us look at the Oxford Companion to Chess
one of the most meticulously researched books on the subject of Chess.

In the section titled Positional Play
Hooper and Whyld state:

"The distinction between positional and tactical play is not clear cut.
All good moves have a strategic purpose and most contain tactical elements."

"...not clear cut." When does positional become tactical and visa versa.

In the section titled 'Positional Sacrifice" they state:

"The distinction beween a positional sacrifice and any other kind
is somewhat fuzzy."

So here we have a book praised by everyone including Edward Winter,
meticulously researched and yet when it comes to explaining exactly what
is a positional sacrifice the best they have is...'fuzzy.'

The fuzziness (for me ) comes with how you judge a position.

Suppose White sacs the exchange to achieve a Knight outpost.
I prefer the term positional combination.
You have played a forced series of moves to achive an aim. (a Knight outpost).
Capablanca called them his 'wee combinations'.

In the case mentioned the Knight dominates the board.
The value of the Knight has risen to that above a Rook.
So Where is the sacrifice?

After a sacrifice you are meant to be down material.
In the case of sacrificial attack against the King one
can be two or even three pieces down and the remaining pieces
hoplessly out of play delivering mate in the corner of the board.
It matters not, the game is over.

After a correctly played so called positional sacrifice
the value of your remaining pieces or pieces has risen
beyond the scope of what they were before the sac was played.
So where is the sacrifice?

Spielmann covering the Positional Sacrifice in his book
The Art of Sacrifice states:

"However, if when all is said and done the positional sacrifice
is only an exchange..."

My reckoning is and everyone who has ever played a postional sacrifice
must agree. (else why play one) is that their position has improved
as a result of the sacrifice and their piece or pieces have much
more scope and mobility.
They have judged the position is better for them even though
they is no way to calculate it out to a win.
Where is the sacrifice?
A closer term would it's a postional exchange.
(stick 'The Positional Exchange' on the cover of a book and see
how many copies it sells.) 😉

You also have the term Positional Sacrifice covering defensive moves.
You sac the exchange so your opponents pieces have lost their mobility
and the attack falters.
You are not improving your position, you are improving your chances
of not getting beat. 'The Positonal Back to Wall Sac.'

The only case of what I would call a genuine Positional Sacrifice
is what Spielmann calls an Obstructive Sacrifice.

He gives this example: White to play.


White played 4.e6. A genuine sacrifice, not a exchanging a Rook
for a Knight or even a Queen for a couple of minor pieces.

After 4...fxe6


Black will have trouble getting his Bishop's out,
the Black King's position has been weakened.
This sacrifice with the majority of the White pieces still on the
back rank and no clear calculated win in sight is, if there is such a thing,
a positional sacrifice.

But the term Blockading sacrifce or Developing Sacrifice suits just as well.
It's played 4 moves into the game, you could claim it was a gambit pawn.
(more fuzziness.)

I think a strategic combination or positonal combination
is a better term than a postional sacrifice.

Not all combinations have to end in mate or the win of material,
in this case of an exchange sacrifice combination you have improved your
position and the tactical scope of your pieces.

A strategic exchange or positional exchange may even be better.

But sacrifice. No.

But as I said somewhere up there it all comes down to how you think
about the game.
I sacrifice pieces to get at the King. I don't want them back.
I don't want to see them again, I don't care about them.
The only weak squares I want are those around the King.
I will sacrifice every active piece I have to get at the King.
I have never seen a positional checkmate.