Compensation (chess)
Compensation in chess is a compensation for a position disadvantage or a material residue. The word compensation corresponds roughly to the terms “compensation” or “replacement” in chess . By determining the possible compensation of a material residue in the course of a game of chess, one can check whether it is sensible to intentionally bring about it, or whether it even increases the chances of winning, or whether the opponent's material advantage is too great, i.e. H. there is insufficient compensation. In connection with the compensation one speaks of the so-called sacrifice , i. H. one gives the opponent a head start in the knowledge that sufficient compensation will be achieved. There are both short-term and long-term compensation options. For example, if you sacrifice a piece in order to checkmate in the following moves, compensation can be achieved for a short time. A sacrifice at the beginning of a game that creates an opening advantage that only compensates for the sacrifice in the course of the game is based on long-term compensation. A sacrifice (usually one or two pawns) already in the opening with the aim of long-term compensation is also known as a gambit .
Short-term compensation
Short-term compensation plays a very important role in so-called combinations, i.e. in a certain enforceable sequence of moves that leads to a gain in material or, in the best case, to mate. You add the value of the pieces that you give during the combination. Then you consider whether this value is balanced, i. H. can be compensated. As an example, assume that the white player wants to start a combination that leads to the opposing queen's win. To get the combination going, however, he has to sacrifice material. The question of whether the compensation can be enforced now decides whether it makes sense to initiate the combination. Would the white player have to z. B. sacrificing two rooks to win the queen, he does not achieve sufficient compensation for the loss of material. This is concluded from the fact that a rook is worth about five pawn units, two rooks ten. As compensation, the sacrificing player would have to get back ten pawn units himself, but this does not happen when the queen wins, since their value is usually estimated at nine pawn units. However, if the attacking player only has to sacrifice a rook and a minor piece (knight or bishop) to win the queen, he receives sufficient compensation because he surrenders eight pawn units (five for the tower, three for the minor piece) and then wins nine back for the lady. Sufficient short-term compensation is achieved if, in the course of a combination, the value of the captured pieces is equal to or higher than that of the sacrificed pieces.
Long-term compensation
Long-term compensation, on the other hand, is often crucial for opening a game. Playing a gambit is only useful and promising if it is possible to compensate for the material given. If the gambit gives you a big lead in development (i.e. you develop your own pieces faster than your opponent), which puts your opponent on the defensive and possibly forces you to sacrifice material yourself, sufficient compensation is given. If, on the other hand, there is no noticeable advantage in sacrificing material, not even in the long term, the compensation is inadequate, which of course often leads to loss of the lot. In the case of gambits and the related question of sufficient compensation, the element of surprise or the effect of a victim that at first glance appears nonsensical to the opponent is also of great relevance. So there are many gambits which, with correct counterplay, be it accepting the gambit or rejecting it or a countergambit , are disadvantageous for the sacrificing player, but they are still often played because the opponent is removed from the victim by the surprising sacrifice Concept brings so that he does not find the appropriate backlash or carelessly underestimates the attacking game of the sacrificing player. This also explains why the gambits are played less often with increasing skill levels of the players, and are practically never played by chess computers, since the surprise effect decreases with increasing experience of the players or is completely eliminated with chess computers. The question of compensation is therefore elementary when considering whether you should play a gambit or not, but not always when considering whether you should actually play it.
Individual evidence
- ↑ Move by move - chess for everyone 3 . Textbook of the German Chess Federation, p. 14.
- ↑ The Computer Chess Glossary
- ↑ Chess Magazine