When do you sack on f7?

I've always saw other people's games where they sacked on f7. One thing I don't get, why do people do this kind of sack, and when do people do it?

why: to open up the enemy king usually, then to start a mating attack/gain of material.

when: when the conditions are right. it comes with experience to know when it works and when it doesn't.  try it and see what happens.

This is an odd question from someone rated 1762 live standard?? I believe if you're approaching an 1800 live standard rating here at Chess.com then you probably know when attacking the f7 pawn would work or not?

You sac it when it feels right, then if you're wrong you'll get more experienced in it and know better for next time.

Never is a decent generalisation.

Sack when it's sound and you see the win. Or, when your opponent is low on time, sack to complicate the position even if it's not 100% clear that you are winning. In other words, sack when you think you will win by sacking.

Or just sack to learn. That's what you should want to always be doing anyway.

Analysis is for learning, games are for winning.

You can play for fun, like 5 min games. People who play only to win and are afraid to lose have an ego problem. I see many chess players like this. Their self esteem is wraped up in whether or not they win a stupid 5 min game. It's sad. They need to get a life.

I'll try stuff out in play, especially online play where I have tons of time to think in the later positions that I got myself into. Sometimes I'll say "I'm going to castle opposite of my opponent to make this exciting" without putting in tons of thought into if one side castling will give me an edge over the other just because it will be fun (obviously if the opposite castle moved me right into a dangerous attack I wouldn't do it).

If I was playing in a tournament I would certainly be sticking to what I know and playing to win. With internet play I think you need to mix it up sometimes and try new paths to see how they turn out.

Agreed.

It's this same games-are-only-for-winning BS that leads to the multitude of people who let engines make all their decisions for them.

Every game with a winner also has a loser.  Does that mean the game should never have been played?

My point is that you don't learn anything by sacrificing when you don't think it's good, just 'to learn'.

Do it in a blitz game, your opponent defends badly and you win. What did you learn? That people don't find good defence in time pressure?

Why not try it out in analysis to see if it's actually a good move? Why do you need it to be in a game?

If you're playing moves you don't really think are strong you can't correct your thought process because you aren't using it!

Of course you can play for fun, my argument was against the learning angle.

If your goal is to play a computer and win, then sure you didn't learn anything from taking advantage of a human's mistake. But when playing humans I certainly learn what can win against them by playing them in all kinds of pressure situations:)

Tal willingly played many an unsound sack in tournament games and won.

Jerome gambit normally, DefinitelyNotGM plays it. (you could win a pawn from it but if they refuse)

A little more complicated than the standard f7 sac.

If you don't think it is good then you already have the knowledge and it is a fairly moot point.

If you don't know if it is good or not (or if you think it is good), doing it and then getting crushed because of it is a powerful learning tool.

Do you know that it's bad because you got crushed, or could it be that you followed up badly? If so, what's wrong with finding out after the game?

I'm not saying don't play sacrifices you think are good, but don't play ones you don't really think are in the hope that you learn. Unless it's for fun, do what you like.

You should always look at your games after whether you're doing what you know (or think you know) or whether you're trying new things.

As an example: I once had a game where I thought for a while of trading my rook for my opponent's knight (all other material was equal at the time) because it just felt like the result would be a positional gain that would more than compensate (one of those rare things you seem to only read about in an occasional GM game). My calculation/positional skills weren't enough for me to be sure, but I went with it. When I ran it through a computer later it was exactly the right move. Sometimes you just have to go for it and learn from it.

I sometimes purposely go down opening lines that score a little worse or ones I haven't played much with specifically to learn why they score worse or to see if I like the resulting positions better than what I've been doing. I had two online matches in the KID going at once that went down identical lines and I took them in two different paths to compare them later.

Sometimes I think it is best to experiment on the board and for me I find it helps me learn quicker than reading about an example from a game I didn't play.

I also always play for fun. Money has to be on the line for me to look at it as more than just fun or something I shouldn't take risks in. Internet rating means little to me so losing and learning seems worth it sometimes.

I sacrified a piece on f7 because of the unprotected Rook on h8 and bad development in Blacks camp. If this is what you are looking for?

Still my favourite personal 'sac' on f7.