Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 01:17:36 10/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 12, 2002 at 19:23:30, martin fierz wrote: >otello, i am not saying nice sacs are not satisfactory. i am saying that weak >players are (often) unable to appreciate beatiful positional/endgame wins. BTW, >i have another anecdote for you: kasparov played in a tournament once, and >played what he thought was a perfect game in one round. unfortunately, another >player in that tournament sacced his queen for a mate in 5. and won the >brilliancy prize of the round. so what did kasparov do? did he congratulate the >other player? no way! he got mad and said that the jury (which i think was just >the spectators) knew nothing about chess, and that the combination had been >obvious, while his win was deep and subtle. sound familiar? > In his book "Secrets of Spectacular Chess", GM Levitt writes: [...] People could play for mental exercise or social reasons, for example. However, most motivation could be described either as type A (competitive) or type B (aesthetic). I am not trying to argue that type B is 'better' than type A. I do not go along with 'It's not winning that matters, its taking part' - in fact I regard that as unprofessional and dilettante - but nor do I endorse 'Winning isn't the main thing, it's the only thing!' That is simply unrealistic. The point is that type B motivation exists and is very important for many reasons, not least that it can help you gain type A success! I gain pleasure from winning, even if the game was terrible. But I gain many times more pleasure from winning a good game. If the game is good technically (accurately played, say) perhaps that pleasure is partly type A since one could argue that it has a stronger ego-boosting effect. But if the game has a spectacular finish, an elegant and stylish episode or even a single surprising, powerful move I can get an enormously enhanced aesthetic kick. Incidentally it is better, for practical reasons, to enjoy such things after the game, looking back at it. Enjoying them at the board, while you are playing, can endanger the result! From what we can tell, most players, good and bad, have a similar experience. Winning in style generates enormous pleasure - a lovely, if occasional, reward for some of the pain and suffering involved in playing competitive chess. Perhaps currently the world's most strongly motivated player, Kasparov, is well aware of both types of motivation: 'I want to win, I want to beat everyone, but I want to do it in style!' Type B motivation is crucial even for less ambitious mortals. If it were just a question of winning or losing, if it were not possible to play a brilliant game, to make an incredible queen sacrifice, to play the occasional shocking or outrageous move, then I suspect many people would not play chess. It simply would not be worth it; such a difficult game and with so few rewards. It is clear that aesthetic, type B motivation is important for all chess players. If you can increase that motivation by increasing your knowledge and understanding of aesthetic ideas, your game should improve as well. [...] Then a citation from Kotov : '... Chess combinations are a sort of dramatic work of art, full of tension and aesthetic content. It is for this facet of the game more than any other that millions of people throughout the world love chess.' w.b.r. Otello
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.