Is the quickest way always the most beautiful?

Is the quickest way always the most beautiful?

Only Chess

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

G

Joined
16 Nov 06
Moves
9787
23 Feb 09
2 edits

Hi,

I played a very nice miniature on this site the other day, and got to this position:



This position is a mate in 3. As I am a Tal fanboy I decided that I should not win this game without saccing a piece, so played Bg5+, giving me a mate in 4. Of course e5+ straight away wins faster, but I always loved to mate when my opponents king is hindered by his own pieces. So in this position, did I spoil this game by playing Bg5?

Here's the whole game btw, notice that if dxe5 instead of Kf5, there follows Qxe5+ Kxf7 Nxh8#.

I really hoped he would go for that one, but alas.


G

Joined
16 Nov 06
Moves
9787
23 Feb 09
1 edit

I somehow can't put two FEN's in one post, so here is the other mate, which I think is nicer:


Joined
29 Dec 08
Moves
6788
24 Feb 09

IMO, the mate that takes the fewest moves is the most elegant, especially in a chess puzzle or correspondence chess. However, if we are talking about an over the board game, or an on-line game in which your opponent is actually sitting there waiting, IMO the mate that wastes the least amount of total clock time for both players is the most elegant. Also, knowingly capturing pieces/pawns, or promoting pawns, when doing so is not necessary to achieve the above, is kinda inelegant.
Jim

F

Joined
11 Nov 05
Moves
43938
25 Feb 09

What is the most elegant move?
37. e8D# or 37. e8R# ?
Is underpromoting always more elegant?

g

Joined
22 Aug 06
Moves
359
03 Mar 09

Originally posted by FabianFnas
What is the most elegant move?
37. e8D# or 37. e8R# ?
Is underpromoting always more elegant?
I'd probably put an unnecssary underpromotion in the "showing off" category, rather than the "elegant" category.