chess tactics server

Chess Tactics Server

Classify and you will find!
Nutty name, real hobbies
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
kofman2155 14 ( +1 | -1 )
Romantic Style What was it? I'm not too clear on the romatic era and the romatic style. From what I know it was during chess' peak in popularity. Could you fill me in?
brobishkin 31 ( +1 | -1 )
Ahhh... The days when it was the manly thing to take a pawn when it was offered... And a cowardly thing to deny it... Those were the romantic days...

Till one day this cowardly player refused to take the offered pawn and showed the world there was a thing called strategy in not take the pawns...

macheide 38 ( +1 | -1 )
kofman2155 Dear friend,

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.


kofman2155 14 ( +1 | -1 )
Wow I wish I was around back than. Must have been some spactacular games. Is there anyway to bring it back?
sy_or_bust 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The romantics made plenty of unsound piece sacrifices and played fun stuff like the king's gambit and old, outdated variations of many modern openings.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, all of the 'cheap tricks' in the King's gambit and other openings are replicated all the 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
kofman2155 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. : )
maca 19 ( +1 | -1 )
The Evans gambit Was very populate in the romantic era, becouse on those times it was strange idea to give back won material.

bluebabygirl 25 ( +1 | -1 )
Tal and Bronstein played 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
a_professional_idiot 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.
calmrolfe 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......


Kind regards,


raes 22 ( +1 | -1 )
chess and beauty I 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?
anaxagoras 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.