Aesthetics in chess have never been defined by the computer says.Alayan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 10:48 amThe "magnificent" move of the evergreen is a mistake, making a winning position into a draw against proper defense, so I'd say it's overrated.Dann Corbit wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 4:24 am By this measure, neither the Evergreen game nor the Immortal game is beautiful.
Even books listing Kasparov/Alekhine/whoever's most "brilliant" games are FULL of mistakes by computer standards.
So either we accept that humans are unable to play beautiful chess (much to the delight of the mean-spirited patzer armed with Stockfish), or we keep traditional definitions of what makes a game of chess beautiful.
And usually "beauty" in chess is defined as something like:
"A concept that grossly violates traditional principles of expectations (material considerations, positional considerations, David vs Goliath scenarios, king safety or similar)."
So when somebody sacrifices their queen and dominates the game due to the unique harmony of their minor pieces...this is beautiful.
When somebody allows ALL of their pawns to be doubled and isolated (as Fischer once did), but it simply doesn't matter due to other factors...this is beautiful.
When somebody as white runs their king right up to the e4 square in a complicated middlegame (as Karpov once did) but is unable to be mated due to the coordination of his pieces in protecting the king...this is beautiful.
When somebody in a board full of pieces is suddenly reduced to zugzwang...and any move will throw himself upon the sword (while skipping a move would be 100% fine)...this is beautiful.
The level of enemy resistance is important, but far from the most important element in deciding if a game is beautiful.
Most of Morphy's opponents were weak (weak as in, below 2000 Elo!) by today's standards, but he is regarded as one of the most brilliant players in history.
And what about Mikhail Tal? The engine laughs at a ton of his sacrifices and refutes them without breaking a sweat...this would lead the "patzer with Stockfish" to call him weak.
But we know he was an amazingly brilliant chessplayer.
It could be said that a beautiful chess game actually REQUIRES mistakes, actually.