[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]

StartingPoints
ReferenceSection
About


Homepages
HolIgor

 

Holigor's pondering on sacrifice
   

Thus sprache HolIgor:

I am amazed by the fact that go does not have a scarifice in the way as this notion is used in chess. Well, some plays deliberately lose some stones seeking for other benefits, but this is so common that can hardly be called a sacrifice.

The notion of a sacrifice is changed to a notion of furikawari, i.e. exchange. In go a trade off happens almost at every move. Even in yose a game may turn into a competition of mutual damage if nobody wants to lose.

Arno: could you tell me how in chess a sacrifice is not beneficial? Usually you "sacrifice" a figure in order to gain a more dynamic position or some other kind of benefit. In go you sacrifice stones in order for aji, influence, territory, or simply to get sente. I think a sacrifice without "return on investment" should be called a mistake, no ? ;o)


HolIgor: Certainly the player that makes a sacrifice in chess gets initiative and hopes to corvert that initiative into material advantage. There is a feeling of an event in a sacrifice in chess. In go the situation is different. Sacrifice of material is so common that there is nothing to talk about.

Let us consider quite common pattern.

[Diagram]
Diag.: A popular joseki (white usually continues with 'a')

White's approach with 1 sets up some tactical possibility before invading the corner. White is ready to give this stone away.

With 2 black make a sacrifice of the corner (quite a large profit for white).

Now black may chose to take a white stone (1) or to let it connect to the stone in the corner.

These moves give up something, yet they are nothing really to talk about. Routine.





This is a copy of the living page "Holigor's pondering on sacrifice" at Sensei's Library.
(C) the Authors, published under the OpenContent License V1.0.