Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 13 Feb '10 07:58
    when given the opportunity presents itself that is.
    I passed on a mate in one in order to give checkmate without my queen on the board. I know it was only one extra move. still, do you guys generally go for the mate in one or the prettier looking one when given the chance?

  2. Standard member Nowakowski
    10. O-O
    13 Feb '10 08:12
    #1
  3. Subscriber Ponderable
    chemist
    13 Feb '10 09:11
    probably I am a bit daft, but I can't see why the mate with giving away the Queen first looks prettier.
  4. 13 Feb '10 09:27
    Originally posted by Ponderable
    probably I am a bit daft, but I can't see why the mate with giving away the Queen first looks prettier.
    in the final position, my opponent has his queen and I don't have mine. just looks better.
  5. 13 Feb '10 13:38
    Hi

    in Game 6726828 Here I played 1.Qd7 mate.

    But I did toy with the idea of going for a snazzy finish. (see game below)

    Decided against it as I thought the lad might think I was being a smart ass.

    But OTB a few times I have gone for the pretty wrap up.
  6. Standard member PatzerLars
    pawn grabber
    13 Feb '10 14:36 / 1 edit
    Neither. I first sac all other pieces which I don't need for the mating pattern.

    serious: go for mate in 1. The real beauty lies in the shortness of a game.

    Edit: But don't go for the fools mate ...
  7. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    13 Feb '10 15:15
    Originally posted by Big Orange Country
    when given the opportunity presents itself that is.
    I passed on a mate in one in order to give checkmate without my queen on the board. I know it was only one extra move. still, do you guys generally go for the mate in one or the prettier looking one when given the chance?

    [pgn][Event "RHP Blitz rated"]
    [Site "www.redhotpawn.com"]
    [Date "20 ...[text shortened]... 5xd4 29. Kg1-h2 Bb7-d5 30. Qe6-e7 Kf8-g8 31. Qe7-e8 Ra8xe8 32. Re1xe8 1-0
    [/pgn]
    If I did not know that you thought the game continuation was your preference, I would have simply thought that the white player missed the best and most accurate continuation, lost his queen, and was fortunate that it was still a mate.

    Beauty is a relative concept, but all the chess books I've read tend to diminish the aesthetic beauty of a game when the game continuation was not the most accurate path.

    I don't think there is an objective answer, and sometimes a continuation may appeal to a player at the board based on all the variations and "what ifs" that never happened but could have earlier in the game, and us outsiders can't see and will fail to appreciate this "inner game" that only exists in the minds of the two people playing the game.

    Paul
  8. 13 Feb '10 15:42
    Prettier is in the mind of the beholder. There is really no aesthetic value to mating without one's queen on the board. If mate is there in one, why go for mate in two? If I were the opponent and had this done to me I'd be hopping mad, yet I would have resigned if the position was hopeless, so quite unlikely it would have reached that point. What big orange country did was show up the opponent and that is ungentlemanly. No room in the Royal Game for such shenanigans!
  9. 13 Feb '10 16:01
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    Prettier is in the mind of the beholder. There is really no aesthetic value to mating without one's queen on the board. If mate is there in one, why go for mate in two? If I were the opponent and had this done to me I'd be hopping mad, yet I would have resigned if the position was hopeless, so quite unlikely it would have reached that point. What big or ...[text shortened]... how up the opponent and that is ungentlemanly. No room in the Royal Game for such shenanigans!
    If I'd been Black in BOC's game, after 31.Qe7-e8+ , I'd have just resigned on the spot. That would at least keep the queen on the board!
  10. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    13 Feb '10 20:58
    If I see an immediate checkmate, I'll usually take it.

    But, if for example in the endgame I'm winning with K+Q+R vs. K+P, I'll sac my queen for the pawn just for the heck of it. First, it eliminates any room for error, and second, it makes the point that my opponent should have resigned already.
  11. Standard member Exuma
    Anansi
    13 Feb '10 21:09
    To me going for a mate in 2 or more when there is a mate in 1 is similar in spirit to promoting all your pawns to knights in a completely won endgame. And if you can find a clever or surprising mate why not! Its a game of the mind and imagination, that's where the fun is. Besides maybe you'll miscalculate and end up drawn which will reverse your clever joke back to you and we can all have a laugh
  12. 13 Feb '10 21:43
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    Prettier is in the mind of the beholder. There is really no aesthetic value to mating without one's queen on the board. If mate is there in one, why go for mate in two? If I were the opponent and had this done to me I'd be hopping mad, yet I would have resigned if the position was hopeless, so quite unlikely it would have reached that point. What big or ...[text shortened]... how up the opponent and that is ungentlemanly. No room in the Royal Game for such shenanigans!
    dude that's 18th century logic.
    if I wanna be creative with my win,
    there should be no problem with that.
    Did anyone tell Adolff Anderson he shouldn't be that creative after he finished the Immortal Game?
  13. 13 Feb '10 22:06
    Originally posted by Big Orange Country
    dude that's 18th century logic.
    if I wanna be creative with my win,
    there should be no problem with that.
    Did anyone tell Adolff Anderson he shouldn't be that creative after he finished the Immortal Game?
    How dare you compare yourself to Adolph Anderssen, one of the games true gentelmen and a chess genius! The way I see it you are just showing up your opponent. The ending was most uncreative and a slap in the face. It smacks of scoring a TD during a blowout like former Texas Tech coach was apt to do. You are essentially telling the soon to be vanquished that you could beat them even without a queen. If that's not silly bravado, hubris and chutzpahthen I don't know what is.
  14. 13 Feb '10 22:19
    Don't get the ol' panites in a bunch scacchipazzo. The opponent is the opponent and if you have a number of mating options - ah the joy - then you can take whichever you like. A quick and clean mate in one of course is very nice and more econmical, but interesting endings like smother mates and using pawns for mates are great too. Which is better? Simplicty or complexity? Neither - both are great.
  15. 13 Feb '10 22:27
    Originally posted by TSaffle
    Don't get the ol' panites in a bunch scacchipazzo. The opponent is the opponent and if you have a number of mating options - ah the joy - then you can take whichever you like. A quick and clean mate in one of course is very nice and more econmical, but interesting endings like smother mates and using pawns for mates are great too. Which is better? Simplicty or complexity? Neither - both are great.
    Have it your way, I'll have it mine. I like my jock strap in a tight wad! I'm referring in BOC's case to the fact that if there is mate in one delaying it is sort of insulting, especially in his example where sac is for mere show. Never averse to pretty mates if position allows for these, but objective should be immediate mate. I would never prolong a game to go for a smothered mate. If the pawn mate is there and your option is mating with a major piece or a pawn there is no disrespect, but if you willfully delay you might even miscalculate and blow the game.