Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
17:58 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum Promenade Allowing opponent°s material advantage without sacrifice |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | | (1) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014 19:36] | Allowing opponent°s material advantage without sacrifice
What is the term for allowing the opponent to gain material advantage without sacrificing anything?
In orthodox chess this is only possible by letting him promote a pawn, I think.
| | | (2) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014 19:59] |
I think it is called blunder :)
| | | (3) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014 20:51] |
I think about a situation like in the World Chess Championship game between Anand and Carlsen where Carlsen was allowed to promote but Anand thought he had a decisive attack.
| | | (4) Posted by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014 21:08] |
Good question! It is annoying that I can't think of a word for that. It feels wrong to call it a sacrifice, and yet the effect is the same.
| | | (5) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014 23:07] |
Is there a broad term in maybe economical science or political science that describes an opponent outgrowing you? Maybe that is a term that could be used?
| | | (6) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Aug 14, 2014 02:02]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-08-14] |
Good question!
Germans have routinely proven themselves unmatched at naming various chess concepts -- is there no German word for this concept?
There is, of course, a term for forcing your opponent to promote (especially when you have the opportunity to influence the promotion choice), but surprisingly (shockingly!), this fundamental idea seems to be a complete novelty... I would not have guessed this possible, in 2014!
Suggestions:
1) Offering !?
As in: I did not sacrifice a unit, but I was "offering" my opponent the promotion.
Pros: closely related to sacrifice.
Cons: perhaps too closely related to sacrifice (read: this term has almost certainly been used in the context of a sacrifice).
2) Tendering !?
As in: I tendered the promotion to my opponent.
Pros: probably never used before in the context of sacrifice [edit: in retrospect, this is probably a bad assumption on my part]
Cons: this term may not clearly elucidate the concept.
Other synonymous ideas: conceding, granting, consenting, ... take your pick.
For me, "consenting" probably comes closest... but, I can't help but think that a better word must exist (or if not, here is a clear justification to invent a word).
If there no such word exists, I believe the honor belongs to the person who first asked the question.
So, Siegfried, in the interim, you might want to think of names for your new word.
Hey -- how about "shozbot" (in memory of Robin Williams) !!?
As in: I shozbot a full queen to my opponent, but I missed the win, and I had to settle for nanu nanu.
Where "nanu nanu" would mean, of course, that two players said draw to one another. :)
| | | (7) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Thursday, Aug 14, 2014 12:06] |
Didn'tDoTheResearch, everybody? :-) The term "passive sacrifice"
is established, not only in German. Whether you can name letting
your opponent queening undisturbed (to clobber him elsewhere)
such is up to you (I wouldn't be happy with the terminology, though,
and prefer a neologism, too).
Hauke
| | | (8) Posted by Darko Šaljić [Thursday, Aug 14, 2014 12:27] |
We have a term "positional draw",even a book title by Kaparyan, then this might be the "positional sacrifice"
| | | (9) Posted by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [Thursday, Aug 14, 2014 14:54] |
A "positional sacrifice" is an established term in OTB chess, as a sacrifice where you get certain long-term positional bonuses as compensation (better pawn structure, control over important squares, etc). I have heard about the term "passive sacrifice," but only as in letting the opponent capture a threatened pawn/piece, instead of defending it. Is the same term being used as letting your opponent queen?
| | | (10) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Thursday, Aug 14, 2014 15:04] |
Since Vishy Anand was the first one to play it in a world championship, one could name it "Anand theme", but that would go too short. There are surely fairy chess conditions where such a term would also need to apply to, such as the one where pieces that capture go up in rank and stay there (or at least until they move again). No clue what it was - Einstein chess or Anti-Einstein chess probably.
The term "Indian theme", of course, is used for something different.
If there is no term yet, I can't come up with one easily, unfortunately. Peri-Holst or something like that would ONLY work for promotions also.
| | | (11) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Aug 14, 2014 17:59]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-08-14] |
All research and no etymology makes Jack a dull boy.
The term "Sacrifice" certainly implies the surrender of a unit, with the intent to benefit.
Prefixes (Passive-, Active- or Positional-Sacrifice) would never alter the meaning of the root.
As already noted, Positional Sacrifice already has a clear meaning (a sacrifice where compensation is considered intangible, or beyond the horizon of deductively meaningful assessment).
Passive/Active Sacrifices differ only in the context of how a unit is surrendered.
Passive = the sacrificial unit had an existing threat, which was not parried by direct means.
Active = the sacrificial unit was exposed to new threats.
Think of it this way...
In baseball, batters sometimes bunt the ball, in the hopes to secure a base for themselves (typically aided by the element of surprise).
This is not to be confused with the "sacrificial bunt," in which batters surrender any position for themselves, with the intent to advance their cause elsewhere (e.g., advance another player).
The batter might also opt for a "Sacrifice Fly," which are recorded stats in a baseball scorecard, which corresponded to a definitive set of criteria.
1) fewer than two outs (obviously, otherwise the strategy would be useless),
2) ball is hit into outfield (fair or foul), or into foul territory in the infield,
3) The batter is put out when an opposing player catches the fly ball, and
4) a runner on base is advanced.
The point is this:
A sacrifice always involves the intentional surrender of some team player (e.g., the batter who lays down a sacrifice bunt will be thrown out at first base; the batter who pops a sacrifice fly will be caught out). Likewise, in chess, a sacrifice must involve the removal (read: annihilation) of some man on your team (read: some friendly unit).
What Siegfried has described is something entirely different -- to continue the baseball analogy, Siegfried is talking about surrendering a base, not sacrificing a player.
In the words of Bernie Taupin:
"...it's no sacrifice, Just a simple word,
It's two hearts living, In two separate worlds,
But it's no sacrifice, No sacrifice, It's no sacrifice at all."
You can't say this any better than Elton John.
So, what term does baseball employ, when a base is given?
The most obvious case occurs when the opposing team has runners on 1st and 3rd, and your team makes no effort to prevent the stealing of second base (by the runner on first), in order to avoid the risk that the player at third might score.
Obviously, the motivation here is not completely analogous (this is a defensive surrender of second-base, whereas Siegfried's concept might equally apply to an offensive surrender of a base); still, the general contrast with sacrifice may be considered identical.
And what term does baseball employ to describe the surrender of a mere base?
As an American, I'm slightly ashamed to admit that I do not enjoy watching baseball -- though I greatly enjoyed playing as a youngster, I prefer to watch tennis, and soccer (to state it nicely: enjoyment of baseball depends upon a trip to the ballpark).
When I played catcher, my policy was no negotiation with those who would dare attempt to steal base (in any situation), despite that my coaches would constantly council me about the dangers. Luckily, my policy was never tested with a game on the line, but what troubles me is that I can not recall an official name for this very specific concession of 2nd base (nor even for the policy of conceding the base).
I went to Google (to do what Hauke has demanded of us all: research), but the best I could find was "1st and 3rd, steal 2nd."
Now, I'm really in shock -- has Siegfried's question exposed a gaping hole in BOTH chess, and baseball terminology???
Maybe Hauke can provide some better baseball research. :-)
I will say this much about Hauke's reference to the "passive" prefix -- it does seem that Siegfried's idea is almost always based upon a "Passive" surrender (for lack of a better word) of material advantage; but, it might even be possible (particularly with fairy elements present) to achieve an "Active" non-sacrificial surrender of material (e.g., move to avail a promotion square to a previously blockaded pawn).
| | | (12) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Friday, Aug 15, 2014 14:49] |
Yup, if we find a "scientific" term for letting the enemy queen
(or in Fairy chess, anything amounting to the same ends),
"passive" is a good term, "sacrifice" isn't. (But that begs the
question: If we, for the moment :-), term it a passive Hornecker,
has anybody seen an active Hornecker yet? Obviously the latter could
happen as a stalemate defense.) It hasn't to do with a Holst either.
<tl;dr>: Needs moar research. :-)
Hauke
| | | (13) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Friday, Aug 15, 2014 16:22] |
I have seen an active Honecker, but he was fleeing to Chile later. :-)
But back to topic.
| | | (14) Posted by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [Friday, Aug 15, 2014 20:02] |
If a passive Hornecker is to allow a threatened promotion, an active Hornecker would be to allow a promotion that was not threatened? Surely there must be numerous examples of that, both in problems and in OTB games? If I understand correctly, Loyd's famous #3 with Ke2-Ke3 would be an example of an active Hornecker.
| | | (15) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Saturday, Aug 16, 2014 14:09] |
@Geir: Depends. I still see this as "passive" in the following
sense. White very actively allows the promotion (in the sense that he
clears the promotion square) but would still reach his goal if
Black doesn't promote. For an active version, I think White must
*force* the promotion (in Loyds problem, Black can refuse -
it makes no difference) and use the promotion for his own goal.
I.e. an active Hornecker can only occur for the usual suspects:
stalemate combination, self mate etc.
Some "Neudeutsch" expert chiming in would help :-)
Hauke
| | | (16) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Aug 16, 2014 17:25] |
In many circe conditions, a player can directly promote the opponent's pawns.
If ever there was an "Active" Hornecker, this seems to be it (in fact, this is more proactive than any orthodox sacrifice).
| | | (17) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Saturday, Aug 16, 2014 20:41] |
Ah, I have an idea.
 (= 3+2 )
1.Qh2 g1Q 2.Qe2#
Active Hornecker; White forces the promotion to Q and
abuses it as a block.
| | | (18) Posted by Neal Turner [Sunday, Aug 17, 2014 14:57] |
Promotion isn't always necessary:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1257896
| | | (19) Posted by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [Sunday, Aug 17, 2014 19:08] |
Hehe, good one Neal.
So you can actually allow your opponent a material advantage in no less than three ways, even in OTB chess: by a sacrifice, by a Hornecker, or by a Sting!
| | | (20) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Aug 18, 2014 09:00] |
Protest! A game'o'mine (Reddmann-Graffenberger, must lookup
exact source, but as you see I immediately recall the opponent)
anticipates this by decades! :-)
Hauke
| |
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum Promenade Allowing opponent°s material advantage without sacrifice |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
