Strange as it may seem, it’s easier to sacrifice a rook soundly than a pawn.

The reason is that most rook “sacks” are not sacrifices at all but the start of a forcing combination that ends with a distinctly good outcome, such as a mating attack.

A pawn sack is much more vague. The compensation it yields may only be those impossible-to-define chess terms “pressure” and “counterplay.”

In this week’s game, Jan Timman offers a pawn with 8 b3 and then innovates with 10 b4!, rather than 10 Rb1 and 10 Nc4.

He ends up in an endgame — or rather a queenless middlegame — with ample pressure. His 12 b5 threatened 13 bxc6 and 14 Nd4. Later, 18 e6! forced a trade of pawns that left Black’s minor pieces a mess.

The Dutch GM’s 23 Ne5+! looks like a sacrifice until you see that it’s a riskless combination (23 . . . fxe5? 24 Ng5+ Kf6? 25 fxe5+ is disastrous).

Nor is 27 Rxf5! a sacrifice. After 29 Nd7, Black will lose back the Exchange because his rook is trapped at b8. He had to play 29 . . . Rb6 and hope there were no more Timman tactics.

But there were. After 29 . . . Nd6? White was able to take his first material edge of the game. With 32 Rxe7 he even threatens 33 Re8 Rxe8 34 Bxe8 mate.