Resign?,why would I do that?

I don't like the current gm's being bashed because they're not being "creative" or going out of their way to make a specualtive sacrifice when they're opponent will likely win against it. This is just terrible. it's not like every game you have a chance for a briliancy anyway. There is a reason they don't do it: in order to win against them, you can't give a very strong player material to work with because it's just too risky since they will play correctly. However, there are many positional sacrifices where the player gets real compensation and those will win more games. Don't blame a GM for making a quiet move that doesn't lose because it doesn't entertain you! The truth is that that romantic stuff will improve your rating (and it's "fun") but only to low GM level at the most. Most people are comfortable with this, yet for the people that are above that level people feel they have to take unlikely risks than to play truly good moves.

Bb5 made my day.

listen to gonnosuke too! ^^

It's awfully difficult to play like a Tal. Someone may come along and do it, they may become world champion.

But if you wanted to set up a school and a curriculum on how to get good at chess, you'd have to go the classical route.

Not making those insane moves is in fact the best way to play, meaning this will win at the highest level. You could come quite far with that romanitc style, perhaps to gm level but not in my opinion at the highest level which is being described as never taking risks. I think technique has greatly evolved in chess; back in that romantic era, morphy was too brilliant for everyone around him who even though did not always make the soundest combination, it would almost always work out for him. Why? Because he calcualted it out so much and had a strong intuition for it, so it required the other opponent to be aware of the danger. But this style started to decline when defensive technique was improved, all the way from steinitz and especially now. Attacking games don't happen much in the highest levels because being able to launch an attack either means he completely outplayed his opponent (rare) or he made tactical explosions even if he didn't have all the requirements for a true attack which is also rare since it probably wouldn't work if people could defend well enough. So to complain that they're not playing these moves is rediculous and that is what I think is wrong. Attacking chess is effective from 400-2500 (sometimes above, but usually not) but not as much at the top level.  It has nothing to do against the style of attacking chess, but in those games attacking is usually not justified and to try to attack in those games at all costs is probably not the best strategy. The only people who I think would be successfull at that (because they calcualte so, so, so well it almost doesn't matter) would be alekhine and tal so I agree with ozzie there but those people have such unacheiveable levels of calculation that no one else could afford to do that. And even then I'm not guaranteeing (can't spell that) anything.

On the other hand, someone only calculating 5 moves ahead (still quite respectable) trying to be romantic will probably not be able to win the world championship match. Do you agree?

Well you might look at it like this:

Scenario A: The player plays attacks because those are fun, wins some, loses some, and their rating peaks in the 1600s.

Scenario B: The player learns how to play in a more safe manner, studies the classical masters, learns the positional ideas, learns the endgames, studies according to a very traditional curriculum. The player's rating peaks in the 1600s.

Maybe you should just play whatever you want. From what I can tell about the comparison of styles, if I got together with Gonnosuke in a room, he could teach me a thing or two about attacking, and I could teach him a thing or two about boring chess.

Of course there are many times when a brutal sacrifice is correct and that's where calculation helps but by playing a specualtive sac you're not relying on your own skill but your opponents mistakes. As silman says "I'm not going to leave my rook hanging!" the world champ says "I'm not going to let you get that mate in 9! I have a good solution on move 7."

Sometimes the "brilliant" moves are refuted in strange ways that you do not see and instead of being very proud of your amazing sacrifice, you are embarassed...This happened to me in the Mass Open just recently. Check out the attached game. I will leave the reply blank. I make the move Ne6, in which I expected my opponent to resign, only to be embarrassed by his even more brilliant reply.

Wow!

I think both sides have very valid points.In a way perhaps today's chess is the best ever in the terms of analyses and memorization,esp. in considering the opening.However it could be said that morphy and earlier masters embodied the dynamic use of logic that the game is designed to enhance and so reaped more out of the experience than perhaps some of today's players.Reguardless of what style you play,perhaps the first step to becoming a great player{weather or not you achieve master or improve your rating} is to trust yourself and play the way you feel is best,in that win or lose you did what you thought was best and learned something other than a rote memorization of a opening or position.What I'm trying to say is studying past or current masters is good,rank emulation will not usually work.P.S. I found that people and computer opponents of nearly the same rateing will play very differently,very!

He thought for 45 minutes on that move...I walked away because I didn't even consider his reply...shame on me. The sick thing is that instead of Ne6, Rh5! wins the game easily because Black has no real way of preventing Qe5 with mate threats on h8 and elsewhere. That is what I originally had intended with Rh4 to provoke g5, but then I thought of Ne6 and thought that it won outright.

Funny thing is that it takes Fritz a long time to consider some of my play to be alrite. For instance, it suggests 22. ... Rxb2 for a long time and gives the game almost equality when in fact White is very much ahead after 23. Nxe6 fxe6 24. Qg6! ...although Fritz found the saving move for him instantly haha

Moral of this is that playing very "Romantically" with swashbuckling sacrifices and elegant mating threats can get you very embarrassed against a competent opponent. Some people I knew went over the end of the game with me and one of them (rated 2475) said he didn't even consider his reply at first either and that I shouldn't feel terrible, although I'm sure he would have OTB and he was making me feel better.

Just gonna leave the rest of us hanging with the brilliant reply?

See if you can find it yourself :)

Ok - but these are the situations in games where I always mess up!

26...f6    ?

Rob, I disagree with your "moral"... I think the moral of that position is that just because you have brilliancies doesn't mean your opponent isn't allowed to play them, too! His escape move was superb. Kudos to your opponent for finding it! I couldn't (I examined it, early on too, but I failed to understand the resource it created.) Sooo easy to resign there. Condolences on the tough loss.

No, this fails to 27. Nxg5 and you cannot take with 27. ... fxg5 ?? because 28. Qxg5+ mates.

So the threat for white here is that Black cannot defend the critical squares of e7, e8, g5, and g4 simultaneously. White's intended follow up is Rg4 !! because then now the Bishop is overworked defending too many squares at once. The only real defense for black is to play something like 27. ... Qb4 and then sac the queen for the rook on e1 to prevent mate. The game is simply lost here for black.

Not only does the reply prevent mate, it wins material and more accurate play would have easily won the game for black instead of a draw.

That's very true. Your "competent" opponent actually blew it!? He found the saving resource and then lacked the will to finish you off? That's rather unaesthetic actually.

I think my real moral is that you can't play brilliancies based on hope. You need to develop your calculation skills to be able to consider everything. I've been looking at posts here where people argue for some extremely tactical move without really considering all the options. It is very easy to play a move like that without deeply calculating all the options.

It wasn't obvious how to prevent the draw (perpetual check). He played quickly because by then he was in time trouble due to the problems I had created in the previous few moves. He had spent about 1:15 on the last 3 moves before he found his saving grace. I traded rooks on e6 afterward and he took with the Bishop, offering my perpetual check. Had he played taken with the f pawn, he wins. Not obvious because it seems to weaken the King's position but gives him an escape route.

Where did you put your queen? In the line I looked at (with engine help) White doesn't have a perpetual with either BxR or fxR. Have you looked at this with an engine?

Ok, I'll play again.

Rxg2

26. ... Rxg2 !! 27. Kxg2 Rxe7 28. Qd2 gxh4 29. Rxe6 Bxe6? 30. Qg5+ 1/2 - 1/2