A agree with bro's post. I could only add that in the romantic days, the players looked for the most beautiful, amazing combination (the greatest the amount of material sacrificed, the better), not necessarily the most effective. They played for the audience not only for the point e.g. the famous (and inmortal) Marshall's combination in his game against Levitzky.
113 ( +1 | -1 ) Well your interpretation of macheide's post seems to be a little bit of an oversimplification. The era of guys like Morphy and later Anderssen and that type....definitely not pawn-takes-pawn forced sort oc chess, although that was the attitude far earlier.
The romantics made plenty of unsound piece sacrifices and played fun stuff like the king's gambit and old, outdated variations of many modern openings.
The general attitude of our great romantic chess players seemed to be 'increase the complexity of the game and search for a winning combination' (i.e. wait for a blunder, or series of poor defensive moves!). These guys couldn't defend and didn't much care - combinations were sometimes easier to find in objectively worse positions...go figure.
On our amateur level it's a little presumptuous to say that those days are over....no, all of the 'cheap tricks' in the King's gambit and other openings are replicated all the time...you can play like the romantics if you like, and it'll be lots of fun...but even if you're great, you won't stand a chance against even higher rated amateurs who know a little bit about defense. Chess has evolved :0
36 ( +1 | -1 ) Yea I actually started out playing like the "romatics" you describe at first and for some time. I would randomly through away pieces in trade for pawns and near end game or mid game start making a plan. That was until I saw a game by Kasporav who played the Scicilian. Which is when I realized that sometimes the best ofense is defense. : )
25 ( +1 | -1 ) Tal and Bronsteinplayed many fighting games in a similiar style to the Romantics. But they also relied on modern principles and thier great talent as well. For games using great imagination and conjuring up incredible positions they are in the elite.-BBG
36 ( +1 | -1 ) evolution of a player"Yea I actually started out playing like the "romatics" you describe at first and for some time."
I actually read somewhere that as a chess player develops they go through the all the historical playing styles in order.
From milling about attacking pieces, to combinations, to positional play, to speculation positional sacrifices, to well rounded play.
35 ( +1 | -1 ) evolution of a player ?I disagree. In my experience the process is revolution not evolution as I have gone full circle and I have done away with speculative positional sacrifices and well rounded play and now appear to have gone back to random milling about, attacking anything that stays still long enough......
22 ( +1 | -1 ) chess and beautyI am always looking for a beautiful combination. I lose to stodgy players who wait for inaccuracies. Yes they are defending, from move one, but surely they must be bored. Computers don't play romantic chess, do they?
44 ( +1 | -1 ) Here is a good yardstick:
Assuming sound and effective play by white and black, a modern chess player expects a draw, while a romantic expects a win for white.
I agree that some of Anderssen's combinations are strikingly beautiful and, yet, completely miss the point! I would not call Morphy a romantic, however (prefering open positions is not sufficient for the title in my book): Morphy's games are a demonstration of cruel efficiency.