Elegance

After I made the move to force this mate, I had some time to pick my next move and realized I was spending far more time than I should have trying to decide which move was "prettier" when they both served the same purpose.

Which brings me to my question for you all: What does "elegant" mean as far as chess moves go? We hear this word used all the time in discussions of games, but what exactly do we mean by it? Why is it that we even care? What kinds of moves are more "elegant" than others? And finally, which move for white would you have chosen in this situation? I've got some ideas of my own, but I mostly mean this as an open discussion. What do people here think of the concept?

First of all => I only associate the word "good" with a chess move when it did the following:

- Completely blocked out the opponent's chances of counterplay.

- Did something both offensive and defensive at the same time.

- Showed precise calculation by the player, who factored every forcing line.

- Demonstrated lucid technique in closing out a won game.

Good yes, elegant? I really couldn't care.

If it turns out that the move results in some wacky geometric pattern that is rare (smothered mates, epaulet mates, king-in-the-center mates), I'd go as far as calling the move "cute"  but I'm unfortunately too shallow to dwell on the cuteness for more than a second or two.

In your position, I would pick the first mate I saw.  As simple as that. It turns out that my brain just went "okay, queen vs queen ...where's the forcing move...,pawn can queen with check, that's good...d8=Q+...calculate further...oh wait, that's mate".  I never even asked the question "Oh, how can I mate him?". Did I need to look at anything else? Nope..didn't bother.

Elegance, art and even beauty are great for post-mortem analysis and even better if you author a book with your annotations, but in a real game, with a clock as well as nerves to consider, a win is a win ... the execution finesse is really secondary.

Maybe this attitude is best suited for weekend warriors who hit the tournament circuit and are trying to get a rating bump. At correspondence or coffee house games,  perhaps it is well worth the fun of trying to play the "prettier move".

 You make some very good points and indeed, from an objective point of view, mate is mate and how it is delivered does not matter.

But you have to admit, if you had a game where you could promote pawn to a knight for mate OR a "standard" mate you would probably pick the underpromotion mate.

I know I would.

Although this reminds me of a time I THOUGHT I have an c8 = N # but it was merely check and I had to promote another pawn to win...lol.

I prefer to mate with pawns.

There was a time when I would go for the cuter move ... but that did cost me dearly in many an OTB game where I threw clean technique out the window and wanted the mate/win etc. to occur according to my "fantasy" script. Recipe for disaster? Absolutely!

Me now fine with caveman chess <grunt> :)

I think you make some good points, Shivsky, the only reason I considered both was because it was the final move of a corespondance game and I had the opportunity. Even so, I felt like a bit of an idiot for spending that long thinking about such a triviality.

From a post-mortem or writing standpoint though, I think that recognizing it is important, because the beauty of certain famous combinations is part of what inspires many of us to play chess. And it does feel good to win with a "pretty" mate.

When I play, I do my best to play the best practical move, beauty be damned, as I'm sure most everyone does. But beauty is still something many people talk about. I guss that dichotomy is what I'm interested in.

I love playing through games where I can rate them "beautiful", or "elegant". Where the game of chess is an art. The great players have some lovely games that are a joy to see. A lot of times I disagree with some of the commentary of chess moves as being "ugly". "Pretty combinations" are well named sometimes. The game allows for an array of expressions to describe the horrible and delightful experiences of going through the great chess games.

I have never created an elegant game in my life. Stumbling into wins, bashing into losses. As much as my opponent wishes some help in creating something beautiful over the board, I unintentionally negate those aspirations, with everyone of my moves being some disturbed criticism of art in general.

Sure ... there's no denying the beauty of chess history's finest games.  I was only recently viewing a video that reviewed Poker's most finest moments and all I saw were people risking high stakes with outrageous bluffs ... and making history?

Over nonsense like that ... I'll take a Nigel Short King walk any day instead :)

Is a pretty mate in 2 better than a mundane mate in 1?

 Depends on your definition of "better."

If you are looking for artistic beauty or "elegance" to quote OP then perhaps.

From an efficiency standpoint, the answer has to be "no."

As a mathematician, I have to go with efficiency. But an artist may disagree.  

But if given 2 or more same move mates then I will quite happily pick the more "elegant" mate.

It's funny. My best games are the one's where I have made the fewest errors. I find the whole attitude of "humiliating" you opponent to be in very poor taste. And, let's face it, that's what this thread is really about. No offense. As I stated in another thread. I don't have that killer instinct when it comes to the game. I simply want to play well for the sheer enjoyment of it. I find tough, interesting matches to be very rewarding, win or lose.

I don't think that this thread is about humiliating the opponent at all. I think that would involve picking off pieces and winning by an overpowering margin; "pretty" as I see it is the anthisis of that: using pieces creatively/to the full extent of their abilites to pull something out of an otherwise even game. Humiliation isn't the intention at all.

That's not really fair, I think.

I like to dabble in composing, And multiple mates like in the 1st diagram can be a great source of inspiration, if you play around with the position, add a piece here, remove one there, give black a clever defense that defends one mate, but allows the other, it's all food for composers. Mostly nothing comes from it, but sometimes it's good enough  to amuse my friends down at the club.

Then why worry about how mate is achieved when it can be done in the same number of moves? Most of the time when people talk about this type of thing they tend to gloat over a "mate with a pawn!" It's annoying IMHO and disrespectful to your opponent.

I could be mischaracterizing this thread, but the odds are in my favor :-) In any event, y have spoken of chess as a creative endeavor, but I'm gonna have to go with chess as a clearly logical game which is endlessly fascinating to me.

Ah, the old "respect" argument.

Respect is a two way street. In the diagram in the 1st post, if Black had any respect for his opponent he would have resigned a lost position already.

And chess is an artistic endeavour, for some at least. It has so many facets, of which playing is only one. Your focus might be to find the best, most efficient move at every turn. And there's nothing wrong with that.

But my interest is in the history, the weird, bizarre, unusual.

I dont play an instrument, paint, sculpt or anything else remotely aritistic. This is my form of self-expression. I like puzzles and studies, with clever solutions. Realism is not a requirement.

Look at the criticism the mate in 13 post is getting, for it's lack of realism. But it is a brilliant example of out of the box thinking. Is it going to help you win games? Probably not. But I kind of pity those who can't see the artistry.

Well, to each his own.

Long live help-mates, self-mates and maximummers!

Certainly some people may try to show up their opponents by mating with pawns or castling, but I don't think this is most people. I think it's possible to take an interest in the way something looks without trying to show up the opponent; in fact, a prettier position might do the opposite. (The mainline in the first post as an example?)

You do make a good point that chess is at its heart a game of logic, which is one thing that made me ask the question "why do we care?"

Rooperi,

Forgive my not understanding of the quoting option in replies. I'm new to the site.

You wrote: "Ah, the old "respect" argument.
Respect is a two way street. In the diagram in the 1st post, if Black had any respect for his opponent he would have resigned a lost position already."

That is a HUGE assumption unless you know more about that game than I do. I have no idea who the two players are, their strengths, and how much each knows about the other. If I'm in a bad position, and I know my opponent is prone to end game blunders then of course I'm going to play on. It's not disrespectful to use your opponents weaknesses against him. In fact it's... logical.

you also wrote "And chess is an artistic endeavour, for some at least. It has so many facets, of which playing is only one. Your focus might be to find the best, most efficient move at every turn. And there's nothing wrong with that.
But my interest is in the history, the weird, bizarre, unusual.
I dont play an instrument, paint, sculpt or anything else remotely aritistic. This is my form of self-expression. I like puzzles and studies, with clever solutions. Realism is not a requirement."

I should have proof read my earlier response. I was saying that some do view it as an art but I don't. Some sort of copy/paste error on my part. I apologize. But I do play an instrument (several) and express myself in other artistic ways. In spite of this I still do not view chess as an art. Art is subjective and temporal. Chess is win or lose. I think you're forcing an artistic aesthetic where one doesn't exist and isn't needed.

True, I guess. Perhaps a better "elegant move" sort of thing could be that game (can't remember whose it was) where the player could have won either by castling or by a simple discovered check by moving the king...castling is just more fun. :P

certainly. I just showed it because it was what got me thinking about the idea.

Chess sets can be elegant, Chess moves are not.