Cara Menjadi Master Catur Chapter Eight

Comp 

A master 's  superiority  in  evaluating  a position is most pronounced  when it comes to  that vague term  compensation.  He knows  'comp '  when he sees it. When  considering  a  sacrifice  a master might  look just  two  moves  into  the future.  That 's  when  he  can  conclude that  he  would  receive worthwhile goodies in  return  for  the  material  he's  giving  up.  "This  must be sound,"  he  may  say  to himself .  He can stop calculating there. The non-master can't.  He typically has doubts about whether the  sacrifice is worthwhile, less  than worthwhile - or a blunder that will cost him the game. He feels  he  has  to  look  further,  maybe  four,  five  moves  or  more  into  the  future, hoping to  find  confirmation of  the  sack's soundness. Consider this example:

Pretty  Pictures,  Muddier Pictures 
Of  course,  it's  possible that White  calculated  1  .i.c4 as  far  as  7 l:te4 or even further.  But, as we  said earlier,  masters distrust a  lot of  calculation .  They know you  can 't  calculate everything.  And  if you try,  the  picture  gets  muddier,  the conclusions  you  draw  are  more  dubious  and  the  likelihood  for  error  soars dramatically. The amateur who  feels he has to look  six  or seven  moves ahead to  justify a sacrifice is  deluding himself . A  revealing look  at how a master thinks was given by  David Bronstein in his memoirs. Compensation  101 Being  able  to  evaluate  comp  may  seem  like  a  gift,  like  being  born  with perfect eyesight or perfect pitch.  It isn't.  It's a matter of  training. The best way to acquire it is  by looking  at master games and  recognizing  the sacrifices  that  worked  and  the  ones  that  didn't.  We're  talking  about  'real ' sacrifices, in  Spielmann's  term,  not  combinations.  Your  goal  is  to  develop  a feeling for the  individual factors that  make a sacrifice sound. You can  compose  a  list. In  Rethinking  the  Chess  Pieces,  I  identified five criteria that are useful  in evaluating an Exchangesacrifice. For example, such a sacrifice can be  sound  'when the  rooks  can 't behave  like rooks '. In  other words, it  makes sense to give up a rook  for a minor piece when your opponent's  rooks  are  restricted  by  the  pawn  structure.  Then  his  material advantage  is  negated,  and  what  matters  is  the  positional  plusses  you  got  in return.  "None  of my  rooks  did  anything," Sam  Shankland  complained  after fellow GM  Alexander Shabalov sacrificed an Exchange against him in  the 20 11 U.S. Championship and won easily. Another  criterion  in  a  sound Exchange  sacrifice  is  the presence  of several minor pieces on the board.  Black's sacrifice in the  following game wouldn't  be sound if  he dido  't have two knights .

Threats  and  Comp
Sophisticated,  sound  sacrifices  require  more  than  just  positional  plusses. They  usually  demand  threats as well. In  the last  example  Black's  a3 -pawn meant nothing  without Black 's  threats to win White's  a2-pawn .  Once Black  took on a2 , the  Black  pawn  accounted  for  virtually  all  of his  compensation  and  it  was enough to  win. It's hard to generalize  about  when the comp you need is  primarily  positional, when  it  is  mostly material  and when it  is chiefly a  matter of  threats.  But pawn sacrifices can  teach  us something.  There is no material comp when you give up one  pawn,  so threats  and positional plusses are  all that  matter. To  deepen  your  appreciation  of compensation,  you  should  look  at  master games  with  one-pawn sacks .  Avoid  mating  attack  games  and  focus  instead  on positional battles,  like  the  following.

Counter-Sacrifice 
It's  not  just  the  sacrificer  who  must  understand  compensation.  It's  his opponent  as  well.  Often  an  opponent  can  seize  the  opportunity  to  counter­sacrifice provided he gets enough of  his  own compensation.

Next

LINK DAFTAR ISI ARTIKEL LENGKAP