Post your best miniatures here

As lukeluke00 points out in post 16817, there isn't really a set definition of miniature, and what gets called a "miniature" can depend upon where you look. When I was young books often kept them to games less than 20 moves, but some of the chess magazines would present games under 25 moves as miniatures. Within the context of this thread, the general consensus (though not universal), is that a game of under, but not including 30 moves (so 29 moves or less) is in the spirit of the thread. Personally, I think if the game ends in mate on the board in 29 or fewer moves then it's a miniature (for this thread), but for a win by resignation (without a forced mate under 30), that probably should be under 25. But that's just me. There are other opinions. If you don't like the one I offered, ask me again, I've got others ( )
But in the end, this thread is about sharing some games where they just went "your way" very quickly. Any "miniature" will inevitably involve mistakes by the opponent, or a very lop-sided level of skill between the players, but in my view they are still enjoyable to view. There's something beautiful in seeing a game that just unfolds in a clear overrunning of the other side, or one that is tense and balanced but suddenly explodes in a display of fireworks after a slight miscalculation by one side that gets pounced upon suddenly and with very decisive results.

I only play bots now, and generally only get such short games against the very poor ones, which make such bizarre blunders that I don't really think they are miniatures so much as the computer just giving the game away early. Like White's 5th and 11th move in this game (the first of this month's "theme bots"); the computer is begging you to finish this off in under 30.

The lack of a set definition of a miniature, if true, is a consequence of a world where facts no longer exist. No credible book of miniatures has games lasting more than 25 moves. To find ambiguity in a resignation where there is forced checkmate that goes past the 25th move is comparable to finding a lack of consensus among climate scientists because a nuclear physicist has an opinion that differs.

Most books and articles cap the length of miniatures at 20 moves, for instance, https://sahovski.com/Encyclopaedia-of-Chess-Miniatures-volume-2-p430443098

You do realize you're just presenting another case of this ambiguity regarding what is a miniature... 20 or 25 moves what is it, who's correct?

I, for one, just accept that ambiguity as it is, not good or bad, just how the concept has evolved with the years passing, and have showed articles from this page and other sites where 25+ to below 30 are called miniatures.

I'm not trying to convert anybody (lol), this is not some sacred forum where a dogma is imposed by anyone. Just share some short games and have fun 😊.

There is an upper limit of 25. That's not ambiguous in my comment, nor in the literature. Some disagreement within that limit does exist.

The attacking themes an engine can come up with is crazy sometimes.

Because what people do in a thread, and what the title of the thread says, do not always remain in alignment, especially after 840+ pages... because we are not librarians.

No, once again I have not claimed the game I posted is a miniature, I have told you I do not care whether the game is a miniature. There's a difference, pay attention.

Two things. 1) this thread has 16000+ posts, and is far and away the most popular thread in the games showcase section of the forum. Its scope has exceeded what the OP originally intended, and what your dogmatic conception insists upon. And you have already acknowledged this 2) more importantly, I don't owe you any explanation for why I do things, since my impulses are my own, and are not under your control.

All you've done is stated your own rigid assumptions and reaffirmed them to yourself. 
I'd like to point out that you're very much under the sway of the female Animus. That's a psychological construct:

"A woman who is unconscious of her masculine side, but identifies with her animus, soon loses contact with her feminine nature and behaves as an inferior man. She becomes opinionated, rigid, and aggressively bitter, becoming more interested in power than in relatedness. Jung said that a woman overtaken by her animus is obstinate, lays down the law, harps on principles, is a word-mongerer, and is argumentative and domineering."

In your case it takes the form of insisting that others adhere to the "rules of the library", which makes you kind of a nightmare librarian.

Yet there are plenty of GMs and official commentators that use the miniature term for games with the length I mentioned, because they know it's not something written in stone as a chess rule like what a check is f.example.

If far more stronger and experienced players use the term loosely, who are we, low levels, to contradict them? Unless of course you're some color font guy here that believe he's the "master" at gatekeeping nonsense.

Most recent miniature. Enjoy!

A crazy game with 2 brilliancies and 4 great moves. (This game was played in Arena GUI)

Is it really a defence when the bot just dithers around shuffling pieces on and off the back row? Hardly surprising that black crumbles if they don't even feign putting up resistance.

Another game with Rg1.

@AngusByer

As lukeluke00 points out in post 16817, there isn't really a set definition of miniature, and what gets called a"miniature" can depend upon where you look.

Actually no. It’s like trying to define a kilometer being greater than 1000 meters because someone might claim it is, depending how it looks to him.

“Within the context of this thread, the general consensus (though not universal), is that a game of under, but not including 30 moves (so 29 moves or less) is in the spirit of the thread.”

How would you know? Did you ask everyone in this forum? And even if that is the case, that does not change the definition of a miniature. You still are making an error.

“Personally, I think if the game ends in mate on the board in 29 or fewer moves then it's a miniature (for this thread), but for a win by resignation (without a forced mate under 30), that probably should be under 25. But that's just me.”

Where are you getting your conclusion from? Can you justify it? I am basing my definition by the Informant series of periodicals, chess.com (where this forum is located in), Chess Life, BCM, GM Soltis, CCGM Tim Harding, Bill Wall’s terrific series of miniature books (500 King’s Gambit Miniatures, etc. GM Yasser GM Yasser Seirawan, IM Minev, P.H. Clarke (100 Soviet Miniatures), and a number of other writers, magazine editors, and more. I could go on, but my fingers get tired after typing so much 😉

(And I have so much to type! ;)

The definition of a miniature has already been solved. Not by me, nor by you, nor by anyone in this forum. Why go through all this hard work trying to reinvent the wheel?

@crazedrat1000

“Because what people do in a thread, and what the title of the thread says, do not always remain in alignment, especially after 840+ pages... because we are not librarians.”

That is what is known as non sequitur. The fact that you are not a librarian or that this thread is over 840 pages do not affect the definition of a miniature. Not does it explain your lack of even trying to follow the basics of contributing to a forum.

"A woman who is unconscious of her masculine side, but identifies with her animus, soon loses contact with her feminine nature and behaves as an inferior man. She becomes opinionated, rigid, and aggressively bitter, becoming more interested in power than in relatedness. Jung said that a woman overtaken by her animus is obstinate, lays down the law, harps on principles, is a word-mongerer, and is argumentative and domineering."

Too bad Jung is not the final word of the world of psychology. His greatest contribution to psychology was the proposal of synchronicity, but his proposal is now mainly discarded. He, like Freud, lived in a world where misogyny was common, accepted, and it sometimes made it into their writings. You should really study psychology if you are going to reference psychologists in an ad hominem argument.

@lulu,

“...there are plenty of GMs and official commentators that use the miniature term for games with the length I mentioned ...”

If it is not too hard for you, please just give us some GM names so can look them up on the Internet. I did. Why can’t you? Supply us a link. Sounds fair to me.

I am not asking for official commentators, because I don’t know what an official commentators is. How does one become an official commentator?

“If far more stronger and experienced players use the term loosely, who are we, low levels, to contradict them? Unless of course you're some color font guy here that believe he's the "master" at gatekeeping nonsense.”

But the stronger players actually do use the limit of 25 moves. Unless you want to proposed that GMs are not that strong (see above).

And I like colors. That’s the reason I type in color. About gatekeeping. I am using the definition that has already been established by GMs and IMs, chess writers, publishers, and editors. Call them “masters at gatekeeping nonsense” if you want. I only repeat what they tell me via their writings, interviews, DVDs, and videos.

Analysis gave this one a 2500 rating.

@Barefoot_Player for the 3rd time, I am not disputing what the definition of a miniature is - I simply do not care what it is. 
You're trying very hard to construe me as disputing the definition of a miniature, since it seems to give you a point, but it's a failed attempt - I simply am not arguing that.

I studied psychology at university for 3 years, until I got wise and switched to a STEM field. In terms of scientific standards and rigor psychology is not in the same league as other sciences.. the field is in a peer review crisis... most of the biggest medical scandals of the last 100 years have occurred in psychology. The psychology institutions of the West are widely mocked... the average psychology students IQ is about 20 points lower than students in the other STEM fields... It's essentially a pseudoscience full of poorly educated mental cases, who have a need to pose as scientists to bolster their credibility. There are exceptions but they're rare, and they're generally ignored by their peers. 
Psychology should quit trying to be a science and embrace its roots in philosophy. Those roots are inescapable. Jung was as much of a philosopher as a psychologist - in admitting as much he remains on firmer ground than the modern quacks practicing today. He certainly has you nailed, in any case.

Carry onward!

@Barefoot_Player

“for the 3rd time, I am not disputing what the definition of a miniature is - I simply do not care what it is. You're trying very hard to construe me as disputing the definition of a miniature, since it seems to give you a point, but it's a failed attempt - I simply am not arguing that.”

“I studied psychology at university for 3 years, until I got wise and switched to a STEM field. In terms of scientific standards and rigor psychology is not in the same league as other sciences.. the field is in a peer review crisis... most of the biggest medical scandals of the last 100 years have occurred in psychology (you are wrong here. but let us go on). The psychology institutions of the West are widely mocked...”

“It's essentially a pseudoscience full of relatively low-IQ and poorly educated mental cases, who have a need to pose as scientists to bolster their credibility. There are exceptions but they're rare, and they're generally ignored by their peers - Jung was as much of a philosopher as a psychologist (so what?) in admitting as much he remains on firmer ground than the modern quacks practicing today (how so?).” 

So you downplayed psychology with a strong passion, then quote from a psychologist that few people follow anymore (or at least get wrong). Interesting, perhaps even revealing, and certainly confusing . But even more confusing is that you believe what he says. Or do not you believe him?

What would you say if I was to say you are immature and classical case of male narcissism (“I simply do not care what it is”)? After all, you don’t care to follow the basic guidelines of posting in a forum and liberally publish sexist remarks that has nothing to do with the definition of a chess miniature. 

But I have to ask you this question. Why are you on this forum? Is it show off your masculine tendency of not following rules and regulations b/c you believe you are superior in some way?

This is probably the most brilliants I ever got in an online game. I annotated it and feel free to check it out!

There is no rule against posting games longer than 25 moves in this thread. Try showing me where in the forum rules such a rule exists, you can't. You've come up with that rule and tried to establish it, but you simply have no authority to, and so you are ignored. You are ignored not only by me, but by countless others in the thread, as you've admitted.

It is predictable / amusing that you believe people refusing to obey you are behaving as "male narcissists" - but this is illustrative of the kind of credibility crisis psychology is in, and why many people including myself do not take it very seriously. When psychologists brand things with medical terminology while really they're just asserting their personal values, they are not really doing science. Just pretending.
And psychology is also just, by nature, philosophical - since the mind is intangible. 
Keep trying

Don't feed the troll, my rat friend. Actually I'm not even sure if he's trolling or with serious mental issues. I mean who could get so worked up and everytime this subject comes up, write walls and walls of text about such a trivial matter? It's kinda sad really.

I had not considered the additional element of gender which you've just introduced, but it would explain what I regarded as the female Animus on steroids earlier. I don't know if this explanation is accurate or not, but the possibility exists. Could actually be mental issues, now that you mention it, you make a fair point here. I suppose it is sad, though also can be very annoying for others to have to deal with. But I do believe in the power of reason to prevail over even mental disorders, and possibly be curative of them. But maybe that is me being naive.