Talk:Sacrifice (chess)

Distinction

I am unconvinced by this distinction: 'The primary way of classifying sacrifices is as pseudo and true sacrifices. The former type are also called "sham" sacrifices.' I do not think 'sham' or 'pseudo sacrifice' is really a part of chess parlance - it seems to me a pernickity term, maybe used by US trainers to disillusion glory-hunting students or something. It does not crop up much in New In Chess, for instance, and I don't recall that Informator has a symbol for it - these are the two premier world chess publications, and their authority thus trumps the references at the bottom of this article too. I don't personally use one of the big, famous commercial chess databases btw; if one of them comes with this classification then maybe I would bow to the point. But I suspect not.

Also the article is inconsistent on the distinction between the two as well. For instance, a Greek Gift Sacrifice ('true') is usually either a Checkmate sacrifice ('pseudo') or a Material gain sacrifice ('pseudo', btw, usually based on a discovered check eg skelletally: white has Qg4, Ng5; black has Kg6, Qd8; 1. Ne6+).

I think there are definitely short-term and long-term sacrifices, and also temporary sacrifices. Neither subset offers a primary level of classification, nor do they correspond to sham or what-not. Basically I think this distinction just does not reflect what chess is, although might be a useful part of training or explaining at low standards of play. Maybe the statement I quote at the top of the page should therefore be replaced by "One way of classifying sacrifices is ... as used by ... however, advanced chess literature rarely reflects this classification, and there are some obvious logical problems with it too" - as a compromise.Tommy-Chivs 14:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the book that I have authored (Lessons in Chess, Lessons in Life, Lulu:2008), I similarly classified sacrifices but I used the term quasi sacrifice for gambits, desperados, traps, and moves that involve a capture but led the opponent to immediate mate. I call it quasi (seemingly) and not pseudo nor sham, because that's what I really mean. Incidentally, I construct and edit chess quizzes for the past twenty years and teach chess to my students, and they appear to find the term "quasi sacrifices" acceptable, accurate and useful in distinguishing them from true, long-term sacrifices. In Tagalog language (I'm Filipino) in chess and in real life we distinguish between true sacrifices that are necessarily speculative, and quasi sacrifices which are similar but not identical to full-fledge sacrifices because they lack the uncertainty or risks involved in true sacrifices. Jose Fadul 16 Oct. 2008 (UTC).

subject

the part about Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is off the subject

I think it's been removed. |haosys| 23:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pawn or Piece

I have added 'or pawn' to the article. I may be wrong but I think piece normally refers to at least a minor piece. Can anyone clarify.The Gaon (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that "piece" means a minor piece or higher. Personally, I think the wording is rather convoluted, and would prefer "material", that also removes the need for the second sentence (which covers exchange sacrifices). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]