Seriously, what is "romantic" chess? I heard something like there was an era of chess so called romantic and it involves players giving sacrifices and thier oponent must accept it or it will be considered rude. Is it something like that? It sounds really interesting. I want to be a "romantic" chess player now. Somebody please tell me how.
🙂
Lol, now i definatly want to play, lol, legals mate is a nice little mate in 7 with a few very nice sacrifices in it.
example:
[Event "Open"]
[Site "Bad Woerishofen GER"]
[Date "2001.03.22"]
[EventDate "2001.03.15"]
[Round "8"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "O Bjarnason"]
[Black "Volkfried Dittler"]
[ECO "A00"]
[WhiteElo "2163"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "14"]
1. Nc3 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. e4 Bg4 4. Bc4 Bh5 5. Nxe5 Bxd1 6. Bxf7+ Ke7 7. Nd5+
1-0
Originally posted by exigentskyDo these things sound particularly smart to you??? 😉
...even when such an approach is unsound.
Originally posted by stanloh
it involves players giving sacrifices and thier oponent must accept it or it will be considered rude.
When you have to accept a sac or when you have to attack relentlessly even when it is unsound i think it is by default not a very smart way to play chess.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by stanlohIts the romantic era. Blackburne etc. The time when to not accept a gambit was considered unmanly, roaarrrrr, the time before all this nansy pansy crap about pawn stucture, when you mate, game over chaa ching. Over protection, pahhhh if I gambit the blasted pawns then I wont have to use a whole god damn rook looking after the little critters, rooks attack kings not protect pawns. rrrrooooooooarrrrrrrrrr.
Seriously, what is "romantic" chess? I heard something like there was an era of chess so called romantic and it involves players giving sacrifices and thier oponent must accept it or it will be considered rude. Is it something like that? It sounds really interesting. I want to be a "romantic" chess player now. Somebody please tell me how.
🙂
Originally posted by BedlamI just had to rec that 'hockey fan' response 😀
Its the romantic era. Blackburne etc. The time when to not accept a gambit was considered unmanly, roaarrrrr, the time before all this nansy pansy crap about pawn stucture, when you mate, game over chaa ching. Over protection, pahhhh if I gambit the blasted pawns then I wont have to use a whole god damn rook looking after the little critters, rooks attack kings not protect pawns. rrrrooooooooarrrrrrrrrr.
helps put me in the right state of mind to understand that kind of play 😉
Originally posted by BedlamNow, that gives me an idea of what the romantic era is about.
Its the romantic era. Blackburne etc. The time when to not accept a gambit was considered unmanly, roaarrrrr, the time before all this nansy pansy crap about pawn stucture, when you mate, game over chaa ching. Over protection, pahhhh if I gambit the blasted pawns then I wont have to use a whole god damn rook looking after the little critters, rooks attack kings not protect pawns. rrrrooooooooarrrrrrrrrr.
"Romantic" chess is an attempt by scholars to make chess style fit into a literary pigeonhole of the same time, like romantic poetry or romantic music, which hearkened back to the romances of the middle ages. Chess players like Blackburn and Macdonnell (I know im not getting these names right) thought sacrificing was an efficient way to win the game. And in many cases it was. Believe me, if any chessplayer, including the above, thought pushing pawns would win the game, they would push pawns. If you played over some of the games of Harrwitz, Staunton, etc. (aside from weak opening theory) you'd think they were played yesterday.