Here's a good definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_chess

Originally posted by General Putzer
Here's a good definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_chess

WTF?? You tring to be clevar ark? I don't get it.

Knight moves to take Queen, Queen resists coyly, Knight ripostes with badinage and blandishment, Bishop advances, Knight takes Queen, Queen takes Knight and they all live happily ever after until the King finds out and has them both hung, drawn and quartered for high treason.

All chessplayers at all times are/were trying to win the most efficient way possible. If they thought sacrificing pieces was the way to do it, they did. Trying to equate chess to music/art is nonsense (although imagination does have a lot to do with the game). You might as well talk about romantic mathematics. Look at Morphy, for example. Some he heralded the demise of "romantic" chess with his positional "style." But Morphy could ac and sac with the best of 'em, but not if he didn't see a win or decisive advantage at the end. He could also play quiet moves. His great strength was he wasn't one dimensional. He simply looked for the best, most accurate and efficient move to win the game.