Chess Online

Nice and easy. Thanks.

nice and easy also
thanks

I saw Bishop attack king and realized it can be forced and easy.

Note that 1. Bc7 Rc7 2. Rb8+ Rc8 3. Qe8+ Ke8 4. Rc8 mate is wrong because 3 ... Kc7 avoid mate in 4.

- finish. This is a fine example - if rather a drastic one - of the importance of move order in achieving a decisive result.

Seems the second move can be Rb8+ and get the same result?

Good example of the principle of Decoy - in this case forcing the king to a worse square on which it can be mated.

"Both sacrifices are decoys."

Not sure about that. I think the forced capture of the bishop by the rook is more correctly a Deflection - forcing the black rook away from the square on which it's doing a useful job of defending it's king. Decoy & Deflection are often confused.
A decoy usually involves getting your opponent's piece to a square on which it can be taken or the king mated.

I think the difference is subjective (not in that it's a matter of opinion, but that it has more to do with ones intent and the nature of human thought instead of being mechanical). So in that sense, "distinction without a difference" sounds right to me, but there is a difference even if it only lives in peoples heads.

... but it is hard to resist.

A piece that has been lured off a good square has obviously been induced to move to an inferior - and therefore bad - one, and, one might therefore infer, has been 'decoyed' according to the above definition.

A piece that has been lured onto a bad square has obviously been induced to move from a superior - and therefore good - one, and hence has been 'deflected' according to this definition.

In the puzzle, the rook is decoyed or deflected or lured away from the back rank (where it would have preferred to remain), opening up a path for White's rook. But in order for that to stick, the King has subsequently to be decoyed, deflected, or lured away from being able to defend the rook upon its return to the back rank. In neither instance did either piece have any choice in the matter.

In both instances, the words 'decoyed', 'deflected', or 'lured away' are appropriate descriptions of what is going on. For the the distinction to be meaningful, one should require I think there to be a much more discernible difference in what they purport to describe. On the other hand, absent any real difference, one is free to use either expression as one chooses, the meanings being identical and well understood. Nothing wrong with that.

... is of course not a heap. But it can be made into one. bash it with a heavy object on a smooth enough surface to break into smaller grains, and there you have it: a heap.

Did you even bother to read the definitions of the two terms from Wikipedia I posted above?
Much as you might like to redefine the definitions of Deflection & Decoy, it doesn't change the fact that they both have distinct, separate meanings!
Why don't you do some searching of your own because I don't think you'll find decoy described as just a kind of deflection or vice-versa.

paviland, I've read those article on numerous occasions (since these ideas have been brought up before) and I read what you posted. I'm not going to try and discredit what they say, or claim they are wrong, but it should be noted that:

1. The article on deflection (en.wikipedia.org) is about deflection in general, not just deflection sacrifices. Specific types of sacrifices are referenced here (en.wikipedia.org, see bullet points; as it happens, Decoy is not even mentioned) and that definition is not as specifically attached to the idea of exposing a piece by vacating rank or file.

2. The article on decoy (en.wikipedia.org) doesn't conform to Wikipedia standards, it begins with the warning:
"This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2014)"

This doesn't leave me brimming with confidence that these definitions are authoritative, let alone distinguishing an absolute difference.

Shorter definitions (such as those from en.wikipedia.org) tend to make the same simplifications to "good" and "bad" squares. As archduke_piccolo has already done, these can be argued to be the same by assuming a dichotomy between good and bad squares (i.e. any not good square is bad, and vice versa). I don't believe this dichotomy is accurate as I don't believe "good squares" or "bad squares" are objectively defined.



Perhaps it helps to look at another set of definitions, these coming from the Combinaiton section of IM Jeremy Silman's "The Complete Book of Chess Strategy".

The decoy subsection begins:
"DECOY sacrifices force enemy pieces to squares that they would prefer not to occupy. At times this involves pulling a piece to square square where it will meet its doom; at other times the decoy pulls a key defensive unit away from its duties which, in turn, causes the defender's whole position to collapse."

At the end of the subsection he even provides the following example asserting 1.Rxd4 is a decoy, though I'm quite you'll consider this a deflection. (For the record, I would.)


On the very next page he says of deflection:
"Quite often a defender manages to hold life and limb together with one brave piece. To break down this kind of heroic defensive posture, the attacker needs to chase away this key unit. At times, the displacement of this once critical piece can completely ruin the defender's game and reduce his position to ashes. Pulling this kind of defensive peice away from its duties is what deflection is all about."

Now that's not much of a definition, but it does make it sound more like Deflection is once case of Decoy instead of something else altogether. I'm not really any more partial to Silman's definitions than Wikipedia's, or saying that his definitions should be definitive. Just that these chess terms are a little more chaotic than we would like to think.

Ultimately, understanding the differences (or at least what different things can be gained by relocating an opponent piece, via sacrifice) is more important than making the distinction. But being familiar with the terminology and what kind of differences it does and doesn't make is nice too.

We also say that the black Queen was overloaded: defending mate at g7 and defending the pawn at d6. Rd6 just wins du to that: decoy or defection ? I cal it a killer.

As for force being relevant, I am not so sure. Silman does say "Decoy sacrifices force enemy pieces..." but he clearly doesn't stick to that. So I've read it in a generic sense as in trying to force someone to do something they don't want to do, not as creating a situation where taking the piece is the only option.

Silman's example in my opinion is deflection in that accepting the sacrifice (1.... Qxd6) removes the defense of something else, namely the king, by failing to support g7. If the queen abandons the rank and we've successfully deflected it (though it was not a deflection sacrifice) and will follow with 2. Qxg7# (except for 1.... Qg4 2. Qxg4).

If Black moves along the 7th rank, mate shortly follows. The longest mate being 1....Qe7 2. Rxd8+ Kf7 3. Qxg7+ Ke6 4. Qg4+ Kf7 5. Qg8#. Note 2.Rxd8+ is also a deflection sacrifice tempting 2....Qxd8 3.Qxg7#. So Black's queen has to sit still and take the hit.

If Black could not move we'd see something like 2. Rxd7 Rxd7 3. Qxb8+ Kf7 4. Qf4+, increasing White's material lead. We can't take with either knight because 2.... Nxd7 3.Qxg7# (it doesn't matter which knight). So ultimately I think Black's best move is 1.... Ne6, defending g7 so that 2.Rxd7 Nxd7 is safe.


Whether www.chessebook.com is right to include force or not is another matter. I suppose they are right up to the point that they can define and use their own terms on their own site however they please. That of course does not mean everyone else uses the term "decoy" only when force is involved.

Decoy and deflction are almostthe same; who cares. POINT.

seif73, one form of the English word "decoy" is a verb meaning to lure or be lured into a trap. You could use other forms of the word (mostly nouns for a thing that misleads in one way or another) to talk various kinds of misdirection and make sense, but the chess term "decoy" seems most clearly related to the verb above.

... to a tentative idea I expressed in an earlier posting, I would suggest that both are decoys, though I agree that there are elements of deflection in at least one of these.

The BQ's primary task here is to defend the vulnerable rear rank. There is no question of the initial rook move deflecting the Queen from that function: after taking the rook, or any other move, the queen continues to carry out that function.

But the offer, by just about forcing the Queen to take the proffered bait, decoys the Queen onto a less convenient square from which to defend, one that can place it under direct attack.

Now, 2.Qa3ch is the interesting one, because it satisfies to my mind the criteria for a decoy and for a deflection.

It is a decoy in that it induces the BQ to capture the piece just moved. It is in fact forced. A decoy sacrifice has a strong forcing quality to it.

But it is also a deflection sacrifice, because the Queen has been induced to abandon, or at least leave only a vestige of, its defence of the rear rank. I tend to see the thing in terms of the subsequent rook check, rather than the bishop capture. I'm not sure whether the move White chooses makes any difference, as the Rh8ch move is the decisive one in either case.

It seems therefore that there is nothing to stop a sacrifice being both a decoy and a deflection, each descriptor describing a different aspect of the sacrifice.

Here is a tentative approach to a sacrifice that might better be described as a deflection rather than a decoy:


1.Qd5 ...
Attempts to induce 1...Qxd5 2.Rh4ch and mate next. But the Queen is not to be drawn away from its primary function: defending the h-file. At the same time something has to be done about the obvious QxQ threat. There are no safe squares for the Queen on the h-file, so Black has to find another defence.

1...g6.
My point is that rather than a decoy - rather than induce or force it to a vulnerable square - White's sac is an attempt to deflect the queen from its primary function. But it also perhaps induces a weakening of the Black's King position by drawing the g-pawn off the long diagonal. I'm not sure how to describe this, as in many respects the pawn move largely (not entirely) closes down the h-file as an avenue of attack, though in so doing it opens up another.

2,Bb2ch Rg7 (forced)
A possible continuation runs

3.Qd7 Rag8
4.Bxg6 ...
Another attempted deflection. I don't really think of this move altogether as a decoy, as the Queen does have another option.

A. 4...Qh6
5.Bxg7ch Rxg7
6.Qd8ch Rg8
7.Qf6ch Rg7
8.Qf8ch Rg8
9.Qxh6#

B. 4...Qxg6
5.Rh4ch Qh7
6.Bxg7ch Rxg7
7.Qe8ch Rg8
8.Rxh7ch Kxh7
9.Qe4ch ...
10.Qxb7.

Pretty complex question, eh? I'm not sure I have an answer that differences 'decoy' and 'deflection' in anything like definitive terms.

Not every tactical move we play has to have a name!
While precise definitions (when you can find them) vary according to the site you look at, I prefer the definition of Decoy as being the forcing (most usually) of an opponent's piece, or king, to a square where it can be captured or mated on the next move, or very soon after.
I think the element of capture or mating of the piece being moved is what's important in the decoy.
By contrast, Deflection involves forcing your opponent's piece out of the way so it longer protects a square, file or rank but it is subsequently left alone.

In a Decoy, the piece being moved is the object of the tactic whereas in Deflection, the piece moved is an obstruction to be removed. At least that's my personal understanding which accords more or less with the various definitions I've found.

... makes a fair point. Why should we attach a name - a label - to every tactical motif that comes under our notice?

My view on this is two-fold.
1. attaching a name is an aid to familiarization of tactical motifs, and hence an ongoing awareness of them. As time goes by you simply see patterns, but early in one's development, why not consciously keep a weather eye out for pins, forks, skewers, double checks, discovered attacks, masked batteries etc, and so on and so forth. Take them in turn.

Beginners are often acutely conscious of pins, hence their frequent resort (quite unnecessarily) to moves like a3 or h3, ...a6 or ...h6. But they are surprisingly unalert to incoming forks, even the infamous Knight fork. So a deliberately conscious lookout for these helps develop the 'sixth sense' that aids the experienced player.

2. It is also a help to the annotator, who can explain the more clearly the motives behind a move that might, to a beginner, say, seem incomprehensible. Why does he check the King by placing the queen, unprotected, right where the King can simply take it? Black plans to decoy the King onto a square such that when in response Black takes the rook, he can under-promote to a knight and fork White's King and Queen. The resulting endgame is winning for Black, though the process will be a longish one.

At that, names are reserved for frequently encountered motifs or patterns. These types of sacrifices are well known, and hence may attract some sort of familiarizing appellation.

Here is something I just researched, that might be of interest. This is from a game played in 1910: Spielmann vs Forgacs


1.Rac1 ...
Leaves the a3-knight to be taken. Now Spielmann called this a decoy sacrifice, but I think it is more a deflection. Spielmann wants the Black Queen off the c-file so he can reach c7. He doesn't really care where the enemy queen goes. It ain't going to be anywhere very useful for Black!

1...Qxa3
... anyway. Might as well, and from a3 the Queen can be brought back into defence at f8, say.

2.Rxc7 ...
Threatens mate at g7. There is but one worthwhile defence:

2...Qf8
3.Qh5ch Kg8
4.Rxf8ch Rxf8
5.h4 ...
Black was threatening a back rank mate. But now White threatens 6.Qg6 and a quick kill.

5... Rac8
6.b6 Rxc7
7.bxc7 Rc8
8.Qd1 ...
Black resigned. There was no cure for 9.Qd8, whatever Black played.

... I found interesting. Its fascination lies not so much in what name we call this or that sacrificial motif, but in the nature of the sacrificial motifs themselves. The examples that have been used in this thread haven't been at all difficult - probably every reader who has looked at this thread has understood the discussion and the supporting examples. But rather it has to do with the underlying motives as well motifs.

But as even the wiseacres aren't especially definitive in their usages, it ill behoves us to be too prescriptive, I guess.