Aesthetics of chosen checkmate

Yeah I love that tactic, it's on the tactics trainer.

That lacks subtlety, style, thoughtfulness, aesthetic value, class and a few more qualities (i'll think of them later). In fact, why doesn't the fair play policy flag such a move ?

In the first diagram why not play Qg7 Kh4 Qg2 to punish him for messing around so badly when he should just resign?

that's just being a chess bully.

Not at all, Senator.  And if you want your industrial concessions to make it through the Senate, you will bow to my demands!

Lol @Here_Is_Plenty. You're quite right, compromisation is a powerful concept that I practice.

he i live in peru! are you talking about the GM Jorge Cori?

I would do Qg5# because it's the easiest to make sure I didn't make a mistake in thinking that it's mate when maybe it's really not.

It's also called the Criss-Cross Mate.  But Samuel S. Boden, a very strong amateur, did find that mate in a well-known game that caused his name to be attached to it.  If you want, you can read about Boden HERE.

I have a rules question.  I am about to go into a queen versus rook endgame.  Is it a violation for me to play random queen vs. rook games against a program of some kind or to review endgame articles on  the matter.

   For Chess.com's "turn-based" games, in other words correspondence games on Chess.com, there is no rule against either of these actions.  You can also use the analysis board feature provided.  You can view similar positions in other games, both current and past.  The only thing you are not supposed to do is have a computer program or engine generate your moves for you.

Thanks for the response.  I am afraid you havenot addressed my question.  For example, the analysis function is not the same as creating a silicon opponent to practice an endgame that I know I will go into.

Similarly, reviewing past games is different from using and ebdgame to mimic technique.

   Reread what I said.  The first sentense I wrote, "there is no rule against either of these actions".  Refering to the two actions you asked about. I then added two more things that are legal; and mentioned the one thing that is illegal.

In the original example it depends upon my chess mood.

If I am in mood piecehugfreelovelet'sgethighon somethingillegalin1964together then I would mate with the queen touching my own king and the other king.

If I am in mood scienceouterspacecomputaionalposthumanEEDocSmithAsimovArthurCcLARKE  t then I would mate from a distance, probably from the greatest distance that I could.

I found the rules.  One statement is that endgame tablebases are not permitted.  I don't know what a tablebase is.  I will just figure the endgame out on my own.

Yes, i think you have stumbled on the one good reason for Qg5.

I always blunder them (endgames)

Still not using a tablebase though! :)

It's a queen vs. rook.  I won't blunder.  I just wont be economical.  Rook vs. knight I might blunder.

Qh1# is like gravity, an "action at distant mating".

I had to play with 2 bishops against queen in one over the board game once, it was after about 2.5 hours of play and we were both exhausted.  I lost of course and was nowhere near as efficient as if a GM was playing it.  I mention this as I think I learned a lot more from just playing it and studying it than from simulating with a computer.  Since we are not GM level, I would recommend just leaving the computer out of the equation.  There is nothing really to be gained from it.  True learning will come from studying both sides of queen vs rook with a physical board.  Okay, you will not find such accuracy but is the point of chess not to explore and experience and understand?