If it's flawed, can it be art, or do I just need to accept that it's cracking entertainment?>

<flawed> is a tricky word. By definition, every game with a win is <flawed.> Theory says the result of chess should be a draw.

In your diagram, Smyslov has already <flawed> the game, by allowing Tal's combination to exist.

<In short, if it's wrong can it still be inspired?>

It would depend on how <wrong> it is. A simple defense, would probably be called <wrong>. Something only a computer would find, and we'd probably cut the human some slack.

<And isn't that giving a computer far too much authority>

The computer is simply truth.
In this case it was in Tal's corner.
In others it may not be.
You ultimately decide how to rate things.

I get what you say, but I want to hold on to a more objective/absolute sense of chess as art before I concede your point.

But if I hold on to it too tightly I'll end up having to concede that only perfectly fought draws can be art, and that's a bit OTT.

Consider the Mona Lisa. We all agree it's art, but it cannot be measured scientifically like a chess engine can measure the moves of a combination.

Poetry, likewise, is considered art, but it is not by nature the kind of thing that can be perfected, in the sense that the perfect can only exist if there is an objective standard by which it can be measured.

I think this goes for all forms of art.

One of the main characteristics of art is creativity. When we are struck by the creative output of someone, it can come across as art. Such creative force is in a different category from those things that can be calculated and be either perfect or imperfect.

Consider now, boxing. The art of pugilism. This is a sport that is often considered both an art and a sport. Muhammad Ali was so great at boxing that many considered him an artist, yet he missed many punches, and failed to dodge them all as well - yet this imperfection does not detract from the artistic enjoyment he provided to boxing fans.

When John Coltrane would improvise, and we almost all can agree that he was a great jazz artist, he would often overreach as he explored the margins of harmony and melodic development, and when he did overreach, he would blow a clunker, or bad note somewhere, but he would use that bad note as a challenge. Instead of letting it pass as a mistake, he would use that very thing as a motif to riff off of over the next few bars, and turn it into something musical, and try to find a way to travel back to the main theme from that developed clunker.

Consider everyone's favorite laid-back painter, Bob Ross. Bob Ross used to say that when painting, there are no mistakes, just happy accidents. He would purposely make a "mistake" to demonstrate to his TV audience, many of whom were painting along with him, how to turn that into something of value, much like Coltrane did during his improvs.

I think if we are dealing with something where the perfect is the enemy of the good, then it can't be art. But if chess is an art, then we can't measure the artfulness of it by holding the moves of a combination up to the perfection of a chess engine, and if we do, then neither can the "truth" of the chess engine invalidate the measure of artistic quality inherent in a chess game, because whatever is being measured in this way can't be the artistic part of the game.

Now some people will point out that if there are any mistakes, such as those made by Coltrane or Bob Ross, then we are dealing with something objective, and that brings perfection back into play for some, but not necessarily, because we can consider a mistake merely missing the mark of one's intention, rather than missing the mark of some external objective standard.

Some may argue that there is, on the deepest level, some sort of connection between beauty and truth. In this sense, when we think of truth, we have to think of communication, because truth is about communicating, i.e. it is a description of reality. In this sense, if art is reflecting reality, perhaps even in the abstract sense, then it functions as a sort of communication, and therefore it has a relationship with Truth.

Postmoderns like Martin Heidegger dispute the entire notion of truth being an objective thing, so there's a whole school of thought out there that appreciates art but in no way considers a relationship with objective truth to be a necessary aspect.

The third stage, the analysis of reasonable lines, is actually an effort to discern between the essential and the secondary. I suspect you will agree that this is a most important exercise, especially because of its applications outside of chess.

<Cheers.>

Raymond Keene in Becoming a GM (1977) says chess is a hugely valuable defence against that enemy. Winning a game of chess does wonders for one's sense of personal identity while losses are soon forgotten (huh?); and chess is a very stimulating struggle between 2 individuals where the outcome depends on the individual alone.

Well that's 2 out of 3, and GM Keene argues that chess, because of these qualities, should be added to school curricula like football, cricket or rugby are in England (a rather particular 1977).

I find the direction of the argument persuasive (says County Court Justice Dionysius1, donning whatever the appropriate robe is), and more engagingly expressed than many.

If there was, this is what I would have posted there. And it would have been more visible there, wouldn't it?

Here’s a perspective from someone maybe wondering whether to play the Danish Gambit as white in lower grade tournaments etc.

The overall figures for games that reached what I think of as the unsophisticated position for the Danish Gambit are wonderful for White

click for larger view

Counting the White wins and Black wins in this database, gives 84 White wins, 31 Black wins, and 7 draws. Reason to be optimistic on the White side.

But it’s interesting once one digs just a little bit. If I was wondering whether to play it in tournaments, I’d look at the results since 1980. There must have been improvements in analysis for Black at some time, and with computers coming in to help in the 1980s, I chose that as a likely enough starting point.

Results on this database since 1980 give 7 wins for Black from 22 games (32%), which is better than the full figure of 31 Black wins from 122 games (25%).

So I might be a little less inclined to mug it up for tournaments as a sure-fire winner for White than if I took results over the whole 156 years into account.

But the universe of games played with this opening is maybe too small to rely on much anyway, and the play for attack or defence at the level that the games in this database are played, are maybe not reflective of what would happen in lower level tournaments.

Overall, I had high hopes of being able to get some indication of good lower level tournament openings to mug up. But the more I think about it with the figures in front of me, the more I’m beaten back into an attitude of “There’s no short cut – just look at the games that come from the opening and see if they suit you!”

So when you're kibitzing you don't have to have white figurines all the time, you can have black ones too

In narrative context it doesn't matter: 1.e4 e5 2.♘f3 ♘c6 3.♗b5

I'm giving the feature a miss from now on, and will have a look at it again when I'm deciding whether to extend my subscription to chessgames.com in August.

There are other chess puzzle websites, and if the puzzle feature is still daft here I'll see in August whether for me chessgames.com is worth belonging to (free OR premium) without it.

<I'll see in August whether for me chessgames.com is worth belonging to>

That's a good question for reasons other than the puzzles too. I confess to be lazy with the puzzles, but I got used to how the website works even when there are better ones (e.g. Opening explorer). I like the Guess the Move feature.

And then this happened. I laughed out loud when I saw the point of 33.c5 bxc5 34.Bb5

click for larger view

Sometimes words are just brilliant.

I wrote data-led a few posts ago, and it looks like a miskeying of detailed, which would be a really really good alternative word for what I meant. DododoDOOdido. What a coincidence!

My besetting sin is going off and exploring and inventing before checking.

I did it as a toddler (always getting lost).

I did it as a student and came up with some clever stuff (professors liked it anyway and weren't too bothered that they already knew it).

And I did it at work, so my career got becalmed - other people got on quicker "reading the manual" or doing what they were told.

So I'm not too surprised. But for anyone following this, <to access the FEN function>, click on any diagram, then settings, then far right on the list of settings.