The aesthetic side of chess

Hi.

When I win, it's almost always because the opponent made more mistakes or blunders than me; and this leaves me a little unsatisfied even though I brought home the result. But the very rare times when I play without making mistakes, and the opponent also plays quite well, in a game that is thought out, played carefully until the last move of the endgame, using all the time available, well... That's the beauty of chess, and what makes it so intriguing, as far as I'm concerned.

Out of curiosity. Do you also aspire to precision, do you too have the most satisfaction in a well-played game, or are you more concretely interested in the competitive side of chess ? ( Excluding games played during a tournament, where obviously what matters is the result. )

The question is aimed at my fellow beginners, but I would also like an answer from expert players.

Me too. We all want to win. I was wondering if there was anyone else who gets full satisfaction when he wins by playing well, not just for beating the opponent.

As Tarrasch said: "Chess, like love and music, has the power to make men happy." I have certainly lost games where I have been proud of how well I played. I enjoy the game: winning in sweeter than losing, but losing can have its compensations..

I want to win, I want to win, I want to win.

For some reason your question triggers me into being a bit obnoxious. But I do see your point and will give a serious answer.

Three months ago I played a sympathetic opponent who was clearly unfamiliar with the opening I was playing. He even said, on move two, ‘I am gonna take some time here’. So he did, then chose the wrong approach, and within nine moves he was a piece for a pawn behind and had a damaged pawn structure. That is a win, but not a very satisfying one. I am happy that my opening prep payed off, that I was able to continue the game without mistakes on my side and I was happy with the point. But no, it’s not why I play chess. I prefer a balanced game where we both spot positional opportunities and tactics. Even if I loose I walk away with a feeling like ‘hey, this is slowly starting to look like real chess’. It’s even more satisfying if the engine approves after the game. That doesn’t happen too often.

Thanks.

hi

I know what you mean... a hard well fought game is important.

Yes.

Check this game out:

A Heroic Defense in the Sicilian Najdorf - Kids, don't try this at home! - Chess Forums - Chess.com

98% accuracy in a fiendishly complicated position. Estimated ELO: 2650.

... and the opponent also played at better than 2000-level performance.

An exciting game, to watch and to watch. I had already seen and admired it in another thread, but I gladly see it again; the only flaw is that I wasn't the one who played it...

That's exactly what I mean : precision becoming beauty ; the chessboard seen not only as a field of confrontation with an opponent, but also as a support on which to make a small ( or great, depending on the level of the player ) creation.

I have a collection of Morphy's games, which I can understand thanks to the annotations, and which I never tire of analyzing. I don't do it only as a tool to improve, but also for the pleasure in itself that reproducing them on the chessboard gives me. If I could reach a higher level, I would spend a lot of time studying the games of the great masters, from Alekhine to Kasparov, from Capablanca to Karpov, from Lasker to Tal, and so on, in order to peek into their minds and grasp something of their creative thinking.

Okay, better come back down to earth.

Reti was never a world champion, but he had a reputation as a artist at the chess board.

His final move in the game against Bogoljubov in New York 1924 was one of the most elegant mating combinations of all time.

Reti vs Bogoljubow (1924) New York (365chess.com)

since i lose way more than i win when i win i feel good but most wins with me are because they the opponent made a big mistake or ran out of time - but very rarely once in a great moon i get a win that i created and boy it makes living at the bottom at 100-125 tolerable to stay in this game -- though some days most days that does not happen

@1

"When I win, it's almost always because the opponent made more mistakes"
++ No it is because your opponent made the last mistake.

"very rare times when I play without making mistakes" ++ Does not happen.

If you are interested in the aesthetic side of chess, then you should study endgame studies.

"very rare times when I play without making mistakes" ++ Does not happen.

I was referring to the "blunders-mistakes-inaccuracies" classification. It happens that there are no blunders and no mistakes, just one or two inaccuracies.

-----------------

If you are interested in the aesthetic side of chess, then you should study endgame studies.

If I had time... Unfortunately, I have to settle for more trivial things: already playing a game without blunders is a significant event for me.

If I could make one like that, I would hang it all over the walls of my house.

I would suggest that you continue your present approach.

A brief History of the State of the Art:

Start with the older masters, such as Anderssen and Morphy (1850s). They formalized the proper methods of play in open games (King safety, center control, development, tempo, etc).

In the late 1800s, Steinitz discovered the best methods of play in closed or semi-blocked positions. At about the same time (or a bit later) Tarrasch worked out the principles of space control; and combining this with the earlier work by the other masters he created a highly dogmatic school of "chess determinism". This was a big help to the development of the game, but many talented players and chess theorists found Tarrasch's rigid formalism to be stifling.

The reaction was not long in coming... younger players like Reti (whose game against Bogoljubov I gave above), Nimzovich and Breyer led a "Hypermodern Revolution" against Tarrasch's extremes of formalism, and emphasized dynamism and counter-play as a counter-balance to the static elements which Tarrasch had valued so highly.

As usual, the "Revolution" went too far and over-shot their goals, but a later generation of younger players (Alekhine might be the best example) took the best of both worlds, static and dynamic, and chess strategy became less theoretical and dogmatic and more concrete.

... then Botvinnik and his "Scientific School" came along, and chess became a much more difficult game...

@blueemue

As one who has not tried working through master games, where would you suggest a novice (myself) begin with Morphy's games? Thank you.

Lichess offers free access to a collection of seven annotated games by Paul Morphy.

Paul Morphy's best games (annotated) • lichess.org

Competitive side of chess is important, but there is widespread appreciation for the aesthetic and artistic aspects of the game, which contribute to its enduring appeal and intrigue.