Compensation (chess)

Compensation in chess is a balancing a disadvantage position or a material residue. The word compensation corresponds chess about the terms " compensation " or "replacement". By determining the possible compensation of a material residue in the course of a game of chess, you can check whether its deliberate induction is useful or even increase the chances of winning or whether the material ahead of the opponent is too large, that is not sufficient compensation exists. In connection with the compensation one speaks also of so-called victim, that is, you are the enemy character projection in the knowledge that adequate compensation is achieved. There are both short-term and long -term compensation opportunities. One sacrifices for example, a figure to set mandatory matt in the following trains which compensation is reached at short notice. A victim at the beginning of a game, which brings about a opening advantage, leading only in the course of the game to a compensation of the victim, based on a long-term compensation. A victim (usually one or two farmers ) already in the opening with the goal of long -term compensation is also called Gambit.

Short-term compensation

A very important role is played by the short-term compensation for so-called combinations, so at a certain enforceable train sequence that results in a material gain or, at best, to Matt. This one adds the value of the figures you will bear during combination. Then you wonder whether this value is balanced, that is, can be compensated. As an example case, assume that the white player wants to start a combination that can lead to win the opponent lady. To set the combination in transition, but he has to sacrifice material. The question of whether the compensation is unenforceable, then decides whether an introduction of the combination makes sense. Should the white player, for example, sacrifice two towers to win the lady, he does not reach a sufficient compensation for the loss of material. This includes one from the fact that a tower about five pawns is worth, so two towers ten. As compensation for the sacrificed player so would have even ten pawns back in, but does not take place by winning the lady, as their value is commonly estimated at nine pawns. But needs the attacking player to sacrifice only a tower and a minor piece ( knight or bishop ) to win the lady, he receives adequate compensation, for he gives eight pawns from ( five for the tower, three for the minor piece ) then, winning nine for the lady back. Adequate short-term compensation is therefore reached when the course of a combination of the value of the captured pieces is equal to or higher than that of the sacrificed figures.

Long-term compensation

The long-term compensation, however, is often decisive for the opening of a game. So playing a gambit is merely useful and promising, if a balance of bills of material is possible. Is achieved through the gambit a big lead in development (that is, to develop their own characters faster than the opponent 's ), which forces the opponent on the defensive and possibly even forcing the victims of material is a sufficient compensation. If, however, no significant advantage in victims of material visible, even in the long run not, the compensation is inadequate, which of course often leads to loss of game. When Gambit and the related question of adequate compensation and the element of surprise and the effect of the opponent at first glance absurd victim has a great relevance. So there are many gambits, which, if properly counterplay, whether accepting the gambit, or refusing or a counter-gambit, are disadvantageous for the sacrificial player, but which are nevertheless often played as an opponent to the by the surprising victim action concept brings, so that it does not find the equal and opposite reaction or underestimated the offensive play -sacrificing player's reckless. So it can be explained also that the gambits with increasing skill level of the players are rare, almost never played chess computers practically since the surprise effect with increasing experience of the players decreases or completely eliminates at chess computers. The question of compensation is therefore elementär when weighing whether to play a gambit or not, but not always when weighing whether to then actually playing.