From: edd@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (ed.knowles)
Subject: Re: Unsound Sacrifices (was Some Other Long Title)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:55:53 GMT
Summary: Tal was Tal

In article <1992Nov11.205831.9440@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
> In article <1992Nov10.233834.22767@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.ed
> u writes:
> >In article <1992Nov10.121130.8021@maths.nott.ac.uk> anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A
> . N. Walker) writes:
> 
> >>   Yes, he beat all the weak players,
> >> by playing unsound sacrifices.
> >
> >Being refuted after several days of analysis doesn't make a sacrifice
> >unsound.
> 
>      What????!!!?!?!?  That's ridiculous.  The fact that a sacrifice
> is refuted most certainly does mean that it is unsound, period.
> 
> -Mark
> 
> p.s.  It doesn't mean that Tal's chess playing was
>       any less brilliant, or that his sacrifices
>       weren't any good.

Many of Tal's sacrifices were unsound, but also many of his sacrifices were
sound. The interesting thing about Tal's sacrifices were that the soundness
or unsoundness of the sacrifice usually could not be determined without deep,
thorough analysis -- not the kind of analysis one can usually accomplish over
the board with the clock ticking. Thus, his play was characterized by fear-
lessness and confidence and a dangerous curiosity. It's been said (I don't
remember by who) that the difference between Petrosian and Tal was that 
Petrosian would only sacrifice if he could see that it was sound, while Tal
would sacrifice if he couldn't see that it was unsound. Needless to say, if
Tal couldn't see that it was unsound, more often than not his opponent would
not be able to find the refutation, either. Of course it was also said (by
someone else I can't remember) that if Spassky (the old Spassky -- or maybe
I should say "the Spassky of old", i.e. the young Spassky, -- the Spassky
before Fischer began a curse in the mechanics of his universe ...) sacrificed
you might as well resign, while if Tal sacrificed, you'd do well to play on.

Anyway, because Tal's sacrifices occurred in such complicated settings even
very, very strong players lost, even to sacs that were later refuted in
someone's living room.

Tal is my favorite chessplayer. 

Anyway, I played a game the other day that I found vaguely "Tal like". I
found it entertaining (after all, I won), what do you  think? Are the
sacrifices sound? :

white: Merrick(?) black: Ed Knowles  - Somerset Quads

1 d4   Nf6
2 Nf3  g6

I really hate to fianchetto, but I had a feeling (after 2Nf3) that my opponent
was planning to play a Colle system, which I've had trouble against except when
I fianchetto...

3 e3   Bg7
4 Bd3?! ...

Does this make sense after black has played g6?

4 ...  d6
5 Nbd2 ...

I don't know... I've always been skeptical about the Colle system. How does
White's QB feel about this opening?

5... Nc6
6 c3 e5
7 h3? ...

White weakens his king's field (he's certainly not going to castle queenside
after blocking in his QB) without provocation. I see red whenever an opponent
pushes his KRP one square...

7 ...o-o
8 o-o Re8

White's passive opening play has allowed black to get the initiative, the
threat is 9 ...e4.

9 Qc2? ...
 This prevents e4 but now his queen is also useless on the b1-h7 diagonal.

9 ...  Qe7

renewing the threat of e4.

10 de Nxe5
11 Nxe5 Qxe5!?
 
I usually don't like to have my queen marauding in the center so early in
the game, but I wanted to keep e5 open as a sort of dispatch station for
my forces...

12 e4? ...

I almost laughed out loud when he played this! What a funny looking pawn
chain he has from c2 to e4. I decided it was time to punish my opponent's
"Fischer-like" play.

12 ...  Bxh3?!

Sound or unsound?? What say you netters?

13 gh !? ...

My opponent says "show me". Actually, I think a zwiszenzug was called for.
He actually did reach for his KBP, but quickly noticed that 13 f4 could
be answered by 13 ...Qc4+ and I get away with grabbing the pawn (even though
one could question the wisdom of jeopardizing the safety of my queen for 
such meager compensation). No doubt he noticed that on 13 Nf3 Qh5 saves the
piece, too. But what about 13 Nc4! ... Shhhh....

13 ... Qg5+
14 kh2? ...

Well, 14 kh1 was necessary. Now white gets an extra tempo for attack and 
his bishop sac is looking good.

14 ... Ng4+!!

Good move and good psychology!!

15 hg??? ....

Now kh1 was forced (if the king moves to the knight file, Ne3+ gets white's
big pawn on c2). My opponent just took the knight. He was shell-shocked and
figured (like everyone else who was watching) that I was playing for
perpetual check.

15 ... Qh4+!

It's a forced mate.

16 Kg2 Qxg4+
17 Kh1 ...

Now this move won't save him...

17 ... Re5!

18 Resigns.

White can't defend Rh5+ because the guardians of his light squares are comatose
on the b1-h7 diagonal.

					-Ed Knowles
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess