A Systematic and Discrete View of

Aesthetics in Chess

Azlan Iqbal and Mashkuri Yaacob

Universiti Tenaga Nasional
Selangor, Malaysia

[email protected]
[email protected]

Introduction

Chess is a very old but popular board game for two players. There are many variants
played all over the world including Shogi (Japan) and Xiangqi (China) but the most
widely recognized is known as Western or international chess. Often regarded as both
a sport and an art, chess is well known for its aesthetic qualities. Most people would
agree that there is a certain artistry to chess and this can be found primarily in the
world of chess problem composition [1]. However, chess problem compositions have
their own conventions which include other factors besides aesthetics. Most of the
time, aesthetics in compositions is simply assumed to be synergetic of certain
conventions or based purely on taste. [2][3].

This fact does not preclude aesthetics from regular over-the-board (OTB) games,
however. Some people contend that since chess is primarily a game or sport where the
main objective is to win, it cannot be considered an art form but even they concede to
the presence of aesthetics at least within the domain of composed problems [4].
Nevertheless, aesthetics outside that domain has been verified experimentally [5] and
also acknowledged by master players [6][7][8]. So the question that remains is what
exactly do we mean by aesthetics in chess? This paper elucidates some of the discrete
principles of aesthetics that are not exclusive to chess problem composition or OTB
games but are native to chess itself, as a whole. Clear definition of aesthetics is
important to the development of computational models of aesthetics [9][10] that
contribute to the field of artificial intelligence and also because similar parameters
have been defined in even less amenable domains such music [11][12], art [13] and
even literature [14]; so what more chess which happens to be a zero-sum perfect
information game with precise rules in a finite domain?

This paper is divided into 4 sections. The first covers chess problem composition and
its conventions, including the idea of aesthetics in problems. Section 2 explores the
principles of beauty in regular chess games. Also included is a discussion on the
aesthetics of brilliant games. Section 3 bridges both problems and over-the-board
games with the general principles of aesthetics that apply to both, hence providing a
clear set of ideas to work with when addressing the question of aesthetics in chess, as
a whole. Finally, the conclusion sums up the basic ideas of this paper.
1. Chess Problem Composition

Chess problem composition is the primary domain in chess where it gets its reputation
of being an art form albeit a minor one [15]. That distinction in turn naturally implies
the presence of aesthetics or beauty. Problem composition dates back to over a
thousand years but the foundation of problems today was established only about 150
years ago. Problems that use the same pieces as the regular game are termed orthodox
and this is the kind I wish to discuss here. There are other types such as fairy chess
that include unconventional pieces, studies which are mostly of the endgame variety
where white is to win or draw but not force checkmate, selfmates in which white
forces black to deliver mate and helpmates where black and white cooperate to
achieve checkmate for white [16]. All varieties of chess composition pertaining to
whatever variant of chess have aesthetic qualities but they are not exactly the same or
even close in some cases because the rules differ. This is why I wish to discuss
specifically orthodox problems, in particular the direct-mate variety which covers the
majority of problem compositions and is similar in every way to the widely played
version of international chess as we know it.

Problem competitions are often held where both exclusive composers and even highly
rated players compete to create the best compositions. Grandmaster John Nunn and
International Master David Friedgood are examples of professional players who are
also great problem composers. Not very many professional players are also
composers, though. This is usually because they focus on either the competitive
aspect of the game or the artistic one and not both, at least not at the same point in
their careers. It is theoretically for a chess composition to occur in a real game but
unlikely because composers often place the pieces so strategically that the theme or
idea they wish to illustrate can be demonstrated well. The basic idea behind a chess
problem is that it typically challenges the solver to find a checkmate within a specific
number of moves against any defense [17]. So how are chess compositions judged? Is
it purely based on subjective beauty? There is no fixed set of items judges must look
at in a problem but Howard provides a rather comprehensive set of guidelines,
perfectly valid even today, in the following. A chess problem should:

1. illustrate some particular powers of the chessmen in their interaction with

one another
2. possess a solution that is difficult rather than easy
3. contain no unnecessary moves to illustrate a theme
4. contain more variety in the defenses available to the opposing side (black)
but they must be related to the thematic content of the problem
5. possess complexity of variations
6. have white move first and mate black
7. have a starting position that absolutely must be possible to achieve in a
real game, however improbable
8. contain only pieces present on the board at the beginning of the game i.e.
no more than 1 queen, 2 rooks, 2 bishops (of opposite colour squares), 2
knights and naturally 8 pawns however, pawns may be promoted to any
piece in the actual solution
9. not allow en passant moves unless they take place as legitimate moves in
the solution or have them functioning as a key (the first move) unless
retrograde analysis shows black’s last move to permit it
 10. avoid castling moves because it cannot be proved legal
11. have a key move that appears aimless or inconspicuos i.e. violates chess
heuristics meaning that strong moves (checking, captures, limiting the
mobility of black etc.) are undesirable.
12. possess more moves in the solution that are also of the ‘quiet’ type
13. possess only one unique key move that will solve the problem, otherwise
it is ‘cooked’ (invalidated)
14. have a definite solution in the stipulated number of moves immune to any
unexpected defenses by black
15. preferably not contain duals or triples (more than one valid continuation
after any of black’s replies) but this cannot be entirely elimated from
compositions so the issue is usually explored in greater detail and may
vary depending on the judge
16. feature economy i.e. the relation between the number of men used and the
results obtained (based on complexity or variety in lines of play); a
problem is considered uneconominal when the same result could be
obtained with fewer men or less powerful ones so a piece should be made
to use as much of its power as possible with more emphasis given to the
white forces in this respect
17. create a deceptive setting for the solver (makes it look like a different
theme is at play) so to lend more satisfaction when the real solution is
discovered
18. not be ‘dressed’ (placing unecessary pieces to mimic the conditions of a
real game) which used to be the practice of earlier composers but today
interferes with the concept of economy
19. have the chessmen spaced over the entire board rather than just in one
section as too many pieces close to each other depict clutter
20. avoid using too many pawns, especially mutually blocking white and
black ones; doubled and tripled pawns are objectionable, except when
used thematically
21. not place pieces in ‘unnatural’ positions for a skilled composer endeavors
to keep his positions from appearing this way

These guidelines and rules are confirmed and reiterated in other sources dealing with
problem compositions as well [18][19] and give the layman quite a good idea about
what constitutes a good or even acceptable direct-mate orthodox chess problem. It
should be clear however that not all of the things listed above pertain to aesthetics or
beauty in chess in any universal sense. Many (e.g. 2, 4-10, 15, 20, 21) are merely
conventions, sensible as they may be, established by earlier composers (known as the
‘Old School’) and those who followed and improved on them. The most beautiful
problem (from anyone’s point of view) does not necessarily win composition
tournaments nor is it even regarded as a good example. This is why evaluating
problems purely from an aesthetic viewpoint is an issue for both composers and
judges. Wilson lists the items judges generally look at (subjectively) when deciding
on a composition if only from an aesthetic standpoint, notably:

1. quality of the key move and where it points

2. preferred themes
3. originality of the idea
4. detrimental effect of a bad dual (if it exists)
 5. detrimental effect of unused major pieces in the solution
6. permission of checking moves as keys and if so, to what extent
7. optional penalization of symmetry on the board

He also adds that based on ‘rules’ like this, judges often completely disagree with
each other about which composition should win. Anyone can see that while items 1
through 7 above can relate to aesthetics in some composition-related way, there is
nothing there that treats the concept of aesthetics in chess as stemming from anything
more than purely subjective taste and personal knowledge, however inadequate that
may be. This is the perception of many problem composers and even players. They
really have little idea how to approach the element of aesthetics in any way other than
being completely arbitrary about it (as conventional wisdom dictates) or based on
their personal taste and perhaps even mood, at the time. This may be why many of the
conventions mentioned by Howard are in fact quite objective and provide some
rational basis for composing and eventually judging good problems. These
conventions are considered objective because they are quantifiable to an extent
without the involvement of personal taste [20].

Wilson proposed a method of evaluating chess problems using reference tables by

attributing integer values to strategies like checks, blocks, castling and also to
individual themes in the hope of providing a fair basis for comparing one composed
chess problem to another [21]. This was intended to provide a more objective method
for evaluating chess problems. The method produced a numeric score for individual
chess problems that could be used to compare one against another. It was even
reasonably accurate by some standards. However, his proposal to use the method to
replace human judges in chess problem composition contests was universally rejected
[22] and probably because it failed to account for the aesthetic aspect of problems that
cannot be accounted for as easily or was just assumed to be synergetic of the limited
conventions and things he did account for.

One might now be tempted to ask how many things there are to consider in a chess
problem. We know that conventions are important and so is aesthetics. Everything
else most likely falls under one of these two. For example, Morse states that problems
have ‘art’ and ‘puzzle’ elements. The former refers to aesthetics and the latter,
difficulty [19]. Troyer, in talking about the aesthetic aspect of chess problems
mentions even the history behind a problem and how that might contribute to its
appreciation [3]. Nonetheless, he is referring to the aesthetic component pertaining to
problems. Any systematic approach to problem composition or evaluation can only
take into account the objective and quantifiable aspects and not aesthetics because we
have yet to define it ourselves. Does this mean that aesthetics in a given domain is
beyond explicit or even reasonable definition? Once again conventional wisdom will
tell us it probably is but unfortunately we cannot rely on conventional wisdom very
much. I will explain more about this in the following section.

Aesthetics, we must remember, is also an element in over-the-board games where

most conventions of problem composition do not apply even though the rules of the
game are exactly the same. In fact, the rules of chess have not really changed in over
500 years with the last major introduction being the en passant pawn move in the 15th
century that allows a pawn on the fifth rank to capture an enemy pawn moving two
squares on an adjoining file as if it had only moved one square [23]. This is why some
games from distant history can be appreciated aesthetically even today for the rules
have not changed.

In this section we have seen the many conventions of chess problem composition and
how some of them relate to aesthetics. In my opinion, it is wrong to conflate
conventions that are typically objective (e.g. no duals, no dressing of the board etc.)
with aesthetics, that is rather subjective. In fact, since aesthetics has no explicit
definition in chess composition, it is often assumed to arise synergetically from the
amalgam of conventions mixed with dash of personal taste. This need not be the case
since aesthetics has been more accurately defined in OTB games. Their relation to
problem composition is also clear given that the rules of the game are the same in
both cases. So, it stands to reason that aesthetics exists in both regular chess games
and problems in a way that bridges the two. It can be argued that aesthetic perception
in compositions might differ from that in real games but this is due to the
aforementioned conflation of problem conventions and aesthetics. There is nothing
much about beauty in chess itself (pertaining to the common ground between
problems and regular games) that somehow requires aesthetics in either to be
redefined. No matter how you slice it, both are still very much the game of chess and
abide by the same rules so blurring the concept aesthetics that apply to both is
unnecessary.

2. Principles of Beauty in Regular Games

When referring to aesthetics in chess, people are usually talking about something that
appeals to them in a certain way. It is true that this can be different from person to
person but there are things about the rules of chess that dictate one should have
reasonable basis before saying something about the game is beautiful. Beauty in chess
as it turns out, is not wholly in the eye of the beholder. For example, the shape and
size of the chess pieces (or even the hand that moves it) are irrelevant and not deemed
worthy of being called beautiful in a way that relates to the game itself. Stuart
Margulies, a psychologist, in an attempt to understand aesthetic principles in other
more amorphous areas, derived 8 principles of aesthetics in chess from the judgement
of expert chess players. The principles of beauty are as follows.

1. successfully violate heuristics

2. use the weakest piece possible
3. use all of the piece’s power
4. give more aesthetic weight to critical pieces
5. use one giant piece in place of several minor pieces
6. employ chess themes
7. avoid bland stereotypy
8. neither strangeness nor difficulty produces beauty (i.e. wildly improbable
positions and difficult ones do not lead to judgements of beauty)

His results have nothing to do with chess problem composition in particular and is
referring strictly to beauty or aesthetics in chess. This means that it pertains to
aesthetics of over-the-board games and problem composition. Perhaps even to any
other form of the game that applies exactly the same rules. His research only further
confirms what chess problem composers and professional players have been saying
for a long time about beauty in the game [24][25][26]. Most of these principles exist
in some form or other in problem conventions but they also apply wholly to real
games.

Successful violation of heuristics has been explained but to clarify even further, it
means anything that goes against traditional chess practices of good play (e.g. keep
your king safe, protect your chessmen, capture enemy material etc.) yet results in an
achievement of some kind. The 2nd principle places emphasis on using a weaker
piece over a more powerful one either in the move sequence. It is considered more
beautiful for example, to checkmate using a knight than a queen since the latter has a
piece value 3 times the former yet achieves the same goal. Piece values (Q = 9, R = 5,
B = 3, N = 3, P = 1) were set by Claude Shannon in his seminal paper on
programming a computer to play chess and have been widely accepted today as a
means of comparing material value on the chessboard [27]. Margulies’ 3rd principle
refers to the power of each piece such as the ability to traverse the entire board in a
single move. The power of a piece relates directly to the number of squares it controls
[28].

In principle 4, more aesthetic weight is ascribed to critical pieces. This refers to the
piece that is essential to the combination played. The one that checkmates the enemy
king is usually critical so aesthetic considerations are severely affected should this
piece hypothetically be replaced with a different one. The 5th principle of using a
giant piece in place of minor ones used imaginary pieces to illustrate the concept of
power utilization on the board. It is considered more aesthetic to have one piece do
the job of many. The 6th principle of employing chess themes is very broad and
covers many themes in chess such as the fork, pin and discovered attack. Chess
problems employ all the themes used in OTB chess but also include more exotic ones
(e.g. Novotny, Bristol etc.) that are less common in regular games. Principle 7
suggests that common positions are less beautiful than rare ones. This relates to the
concept of originality. Finally, principle 8 states that strange positions (awkward in a
sense) or difficult ones, are not necessarily beautiful. In compositions, difficulty is
valued so this is a specific example of a problem convention that cannot be taken as a
prerequisite to aesthetics in chess as a whole.

Brilliancy prizes are awarded to certain games (usually on the grounds of a particular
move combination in the game) at some chess tournaments based on principles that
are very similar to those just discussed [29]. Damsky states that brilliance - another
term often used when referring to aesthetics or beauty in chess - in tournament games
involves expediency, disguise, sacrifice, correctness, preparation (when referring to a
complete game rather than a particular combination), paradox and originality.

Expediency implies effectiveness in the sense that the move achieves something
tangible like a checkmate, decisive material gain or forcing a draw in a seemingly lost
position. Disguise suggests a violation of heuristics because the key move played (for
a particular combination, usually) should not lend itself to the solution immediately. It
is not something that appears obvious, so to speak. Sacrifices, especially significant
ones, are often treasured because in real games it is not something players seriously
consider unless there is some tangible benefit within a calculable distance ahead.
They are also a form of heuristic violation and paradoxical in nature.
Correctness is essential because the move sequence should not have succeeded due to
chance or unsound play by the opponent. Just like in chess problems, a move
sequence is considered beautiful if and only if there is no way the opponent could
have successfully defended against it and no way the objective could have been
achieved more quickly through a different maneuvere. Amateur players are often
quite pleased with themselves after executing what they think is a fantastic
combination during a game but upon closer analysis, particularly with the aid of
computers, it is very common that they realize it could have been done sooner or
better in some way if not that the opponent simply missed a viable defense to their
attack.

Preparation is a term that refers to when a beautiful move sequence in a certain

position of the game was achieved in great part due to the strategic play preceding it
that lead to the favourable arrangement of pieces in said position. Under these
circumstances, the whole game may be considered beautiful and awarded a brilliancy
prize. In most cases however, brilliancy can be pinned down to a particular move
sequence or combination that shines in a game.

Paradoxes as mentioned earlier, are not confined to sacrifices. They also include
anything that goes against preconceived notions in chess. For example, it is taught in
chess that you should always keep your king safe. However, there are positions where
the king if turned into an attacking piece moving right through the centre of the board,
might actually force checkmate. The concept of paradoxes in chess is explored in
some detail by Levitt and Friedgood in their book on ‘spectacular’ chess [8]. Finally,
we have originality. This is hard to objectively ascertain because it refers to
something the observer has not seen before and relies on his experience. In some
ways it can be tied to the concept of rarity but not strangeness.

There are also other aspects of beauty in chess that have been described by master
players based on their experience with the game. Lasker wrote of achievement which
is actually a very fundamental principle of beauty in chess [6]. Whether we are talking
about beauty in regular games, brilliancy prizes or even problem composition,
unsound play is unforgivable aesthetically. Another important aesthetic element that
applies to regular games is the principle of economy [3][8][15]. It is more or less
equivalent to its counterpart in problem composition. Whilst it is understandable that
composed problems have an advantage here since the composer can make certain no
stray pieces are on the board, for OTB games it is still considered aesthetic - perhaps
even more so given the inherent lack of control over what happens - when a
checkmate occurs using all available resources as efficiently as possible. Amateur
games for example, will often feature superflous material used to checkmate (e.g. a
queen and two rooks) due to the players’ lack of skill whereas master games tend to
achieve mate with more finesse. This is not done intentionally in master tournaments
but arises naturally from the soundness of their play. The idea of beauty in chess
leading to or following from effectiveness has even been applied to computer chess
heuristics where it outperformed regular heuristics in certain tests [9].

Levitt and Friedgood add to our list of aesthetic principles the concept of geometry on
the chessboard. Unlike the other principles, there is nothing inherently sound about
geometry on the board but it is certainly one of the things we would first notice about
a chess position. What is meant here by geometry is when the pieces on the board are
arranged in such a way so as to form recognizable shapes (e.g. squares, triangles,
rectangles, alphabets). Obviously such things are very rare especially in OTB games
but simpler geometric shapes like 3 or 4 pieces in a single row, column or diagonal
are equally noticeable and geometric in nature. Detailed specifics aside, that is about
all there is in common about aesthetics in chess as both a game and an art. In the next
section, this common ground is charted and its importance explained. Before that
however, the following two chess positions in Figure 1 illustrate how a combination
of aesthetic principles can render one position clearly more beautiful than another.

(a) (b)

1. Qe6+ Kh8 2. Nf7+ Kg8 3. Nh6+ Kh8 1. Ra4+ Kg5 2. Rb5+ Kf6 3. Ra6+ Ke7 4.
4. Qg8+ Rxg8 5. Nf7++ Rb7+ Ke8 5. Ra8++
Figure 1

Both positions (a) and (b) are forced mates in 5 moves. Neither are in any ‘composed’
fashion but instead come from what could easily arise in a real game. In (a), white
performs what is known as a ‘smothered’ mate by sacrificing his queen (despite
already being a rook down) so the black king is cornered by his own pieces. All the
while white forsakes the ‘obvious’ capturing of the bishop on c6 or queen on g5 in
favour of checkmating the king. The final position is breathtaking. Black would
probably not have seen it coming so easily.

However in figure (b), we also have a forced checkmate in 5 moves. This one
unfortunately holds no surprise and black would probably resign immediately. White
is significantly ahead in material and his rooks simply force the enemy king back one
rank at a time until there is nowhere else left to go. Any chess player worth his salt
would consider (a) more beautiful than (b) because of the aesthetic principles present
namely winning with less material (paradox), violation of heuristics, sacrifice and
execution of themes (smothered mate, fork, double check). Position (b) coincidentally
has none of these things. Although it might be considered an extreme example, it
should be noted that there are also more beautiful positions in chess than (a) and those
considered even less appealing than (b). The distinction may not be linear, but
nevertheless it is there.

3. Aesthetic of Chess in General

The previous two sections explored the idea of aesthetics in chess and how it applies
to both the world of chess composition and regular over-the-board games. With the
exception of certain problem composition conventions, everything that is deemed
beautiful in OTB games, is also considered beautiful in problems. The items listed
below is the common ground of aesthetics in chess as a whole and which applies to
both domains.

1. achievement
2. violation of heuristics (paradox, sacrifice etc.)
3. use of all of the piece’s power
4. use of the weakest piece possible
5. economy
6. originality
7. employment of chess themes
8. geometry

Looking closely at both problem conventions and aesthetics (brilliance) in OTB

games, we can see that all these principles apply to both domains. Rather than taking
problem conventions and trying to apply all of them to regular games which is
impossible, the correct approach is taking the recognized aesthetic principles from
regular games and letting them overlap with the problem conventions where possible.
This can be done quite easily for none of these principles really go against the rules of
problem composition. One of the benefits of this overlap is that we now have
something tangible to work with when evaluating aesthetics in chess problems.
Previously, it was based purely on taste or subjective assessment of conventions (e.g.
effect of bad duals, preferred themes) that in truth have little to do with beauty in
chess holistically.

This does not mean that aesthetics in chess composition is now somehow limited to
these principles. It only means that a certain level of objectivity with regard to
aesthetics can be obtained by relying on these principles, and not just for chess
composition but also when it comes to appreciating brilliance in OTB games. When
speaking of aesthetics in chess (without being specific about problems or regular
games), these principles are the most reliable because people tend to unequivocally
conflate, often to a mystical degree, what they think synergetically emerges from
problem conventions with the general concept of ‘beauty’ in chess.

Most chess problems can be recognized as compositions by experienced players and

composers. However, once they are convinced of this their idea of what constitues
beauty automatically falls back on the dictates of problem conventions. For example,
if a straightforward checkmate (without much complexity and using the castling move
in its solution) was ‘composed’, it would most likely be deemed ‘not beautiful’
because it did not obey or went against certain problem conventions when in fact, it
could easily have been called, ‘brilliant’ in a real game. The irony is that regardless of
being a composition or occuring in a real game, they are exactly the same thing i.e.
chess but viewed as beautiful only if seen through a particular lens. Fortunately, many
people who do not adhere religiously to either camp will be able to recognize this
beauty for its own sake and perhaps get some enjoyment out of it.

It is because of this enjoyment of chess that most people including experts, continue
to play and even devote their life to it [7]. This fact has recently piqued the interest of
computer scientists looking for something new to explore in the domain of chess [30]
given that machines can already quite effectively outplay humans but cannot for the
life of them, appreciate or recognize beauty in the game as we do. Research into such
things requires the kind of clear definition of aesthetics like has just been presented.
Otherwise, the closest we have come to conquering this facet of the game is through
automatic problem composition [20][31][32] which uses heuristics that have very
little to do with what is inherently beautiful about chess itself. For the most part, they
rely on a few quantifiable chess conventions and arbitrary values attributed to specific
themes by master players. They also admit to being unable to quantify the aspect of
beauty in chess problems.

Based on the arguments presented thus far, the following diagram (Figure 2)
illustrates the concept of beauty in chess in a manner that is supported by research and
chess literature. It also represents principles (provided earlier) that are generally
amenable to scientific investigation with regard to aesthetics in chess.

Compositions
• aesthetics
• problem conventions

OTB Games
• aesthetics

Beauty in Chess

Figure 2: Aesthetic perception in chess

We can see from the diagram that compositions are usually perceived by humans
from the standpoint of aesthetics and problem conventions. Often, composers and
those who enjoy chess problems find the two difficult to tell apart. OTB games on the
other hand do not particularly feature problem conventions even though some of them
might exist as heuristics of sound play. However, aesthetics in OTB games is more
easily recognized and forms much of the basis used to determine brilliancy. Beauty in
chess as a whole therefore includes the bulk of what we perceive as aesthetic in
regular games but only part of aesthetic perception in compositions. Usually this
means the part that excludes conventions unique to problems.

The benefit of this compartmentalization is that we now have something tangible to

work with when addressing the concept of beauty in chess without making the usual
mistake of conflating it with problem conventions or personal taste. This is important
because many people refer to beauty in chess as if it was something clearly defined
when in truth they are probably referring to the former or the latter and this in turn
does not translate to anything of value since it is inaccurate or utterly ambiguous.
Fortunately, beauty in chess can indeed be defined to a reasonble degree and since the
rules are the same be it in composition or regular games, it must apply to both in a
way that is not necessarily adherent to problem conventions or personal taste but
rather based on the idea of achievement and sound play. This is not to say that there is
no room for personal taste in the aesthetic appreciation of chess but only that such
definition is not tangible enough and therefore not helpful to research in the area.

4. Conclusion

Beauty or aesthetics in chess is a recognized and acknowledged concept in the game.

However, no formal definition of beauty is given and therefore it often falls back onto
the conventions of problem composition where aesthetics is commonly referred to.
Even so, the fact remains that conventions themselves are not necessarily aesthetic
because few actually apply to real chess games where aesthetics is also recognized as
brilliancy. Additionally, research has shown that there are principles of aesthetics that
are not limited to compositions but apply to chess in general. Over the decades,
master players have also identified similar principles of beauty based on their
experience in regular games and problem composition. This leads to a much clearer
idea of aesthetics in chess as something not native to either problems or regular games
but applicable to the game as a whole. It also makes amenable to scientific research an
interesting facet of the game which computers currently have no grasp of. While the
prospects of this are certainly intriguing, it should be noted that such principles do not
conclusively define beauty in chess and can only serve as the basis for aesthetic
models that would be of benefit to humans not only in terms of aesthetic appreciation
but also in improving game playing heuristics, problem composition algorithms and
artificial intelligence in general.

References

1. C.P. Ravilious. 1994. The Aesthetics of Chess and the Chess Problem. British
Journal of Aesthetics 34: 285 - 290.
2. Vaux Wilson. 1978. When the Pieces Move. s.n., U.K. ASIN: B0007AR5OW
3. John Troyer, J.G. 1983. Truth and Beauty: The Aesthetics of Chess Problems.
In Haller (ed.), Aesthetics (Holder-Pichler-Tempsky, Vienna): 126-30.
4. Catherine Lord. ‘Is Chess Art?’, Philosophic Exchange, 1984-5, vols. 15&16,
pp. 117-122.
5. Stuart Margulies. 1977. Principles of Beauty. Psychological Reports 41: 3-11.
6. Emanuel Lasker. 1947. Lasker’s Manual of Chess. Dover Publi-cations Inc.
New York.
7. Garry Kasparov. 1987. Kasparov Teaches Chess. B. T. Batsford, London.
8. Jonathan Levitt and David Friedgood .1995. Secrets of Spectacular Chess.
Henry Holt and Company Inc., New York.
9. Ben P. Walls. 1997. Beautiful Mates: Applying Principles of Beauty to
Computer Chess Heuristics. Dissertation.com, 1st Edition.
10. Azlan Iqbal. 2006. "Is Aesthetics Computable?"; International Computer
Games Association (ICGA) Journal; Vol. 29, No. 1, March; pp. 32-39; ISSN:
1389-6911; Editor-in-Chief: Prof.dr. H.J. van den Herik; The Netherlands
11. Dylan L. McClain. 2003. ‘If a Machine Creates Something Beautiful, Is It An
Artist?’, New York Times, 25th January.
12. Seth Golub. 2000. Classifying Recorded Music. M.Sc. Dissertation. Artificial
Intelligence. Division of Informatics, University of Edinburgh.
13. Penousal Machado and Amilcar Cardoso. 1998. Computing Aesthetics.
Proceedings of the XIVth Brazilian Symposium on ArtiJicial Intelligence
SBIA '98 (ed. Oliveira, F. ), Porto Alegre, Brazil, Springer-Verlag,
Heidelberg. LNAI Series, pp. 2 19-229. ISBN 3-540-65 190-X.
14. Selmer Bringsjord. 1998. ‘Chess Is Too Easy’, MIT Technology Review,
April
15. P.N. Humble. 1993. Chess As An Art Form. British Journal of Aesthetics 33:
59 - 66.
16. Malcolm McDowell. 2005. ‘Fairy Chess’, The British Chess Problem Society,
http://www.bcps.knightsfield.co.uk/fairies.html
17. Kenneth S. Howard. 1967. The Enjoyment of Chess Problems. Dover
Publications Inc. New York. 4th Edition.
18. Hermann Albrecht. 1993. How Should The Role of A (Chess) Tourney Judge
Be Interpreted; "The Problemist"; July; pp.217-218
19. Jeremy Morse. 1995. Chess Problems: Tasks and Records; Faber & Faber Ltd
20. Fridel Fainshtein and Yaakov HaCohen-Kerner. 2006. A Chess Composer of
Two-Move Mate Problems by Fridel Fainshtein. International Computer
Games Association (ICGA) Journal; Vol. 29, No. 1, March; pp. 32-39; ISSN:
1389-6911; Editor-in-Chief: Prof.dr. H.J. van den Herik; The Netherlands
21. Vaux Wilson. 1969. MOE II: A Sound Method of Evaluating Chess Problems.
s.n., U.K. ASIN: B0007FF9AO
22. H. le Grand. 1986. The Impact of Computers on Chess Problem Composition.
ICCA Journal September: 152-153.
23. David Hoopers and Kenneth Whyld. 1996. The Oxford Companion to Chess.
Oxford University Press.
24. Francois Le. Lionnais. 1951. Les Prixde Beaute aux Echecs. 2nd edition.
Payot. ISBN: 2228894931.
25. Harold Osborne. 1964. Notes on the Aesthetics of Chess and the Concept of
Intellectual Beauty. British Journal of Aesthetics 4: 160 - 163.
26. David I. Bronstein. 1983. Chess in the Eighties. Macmillan Pub Co.
27. Claude E. Shannon. 1950. Programming a Computer for Playing Chess.
Philosophical Magazine 41(4):256-275.
28. Machgielis (Max) Euwe. 1982. The Logical Approach to Chess. Dover
Publications.
29. Iakov Damsky. 2002. Chess Brilliancy. Everyman Publishers, London,
England. ISBN 185744 2741.
30. Azlan Iqbal. 2006. "Computing the Aesthetics of Chess"; Technical Report of
the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-06)
Conference/Workshop on Computational Aesthetics; Massachusetts Institute
of Technology; ISBN: 978-1-57735-286-0; pp. 16-23; Boston, USA; 16th-
20th July
31. Michael Schlosser. 1988. Computers and chess-problem Composition, ICCA
Journal, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 151-155. ISSN 0920-234X.
32. H. Watanabe, H. Iida, J.W.H.M. Uitenvijk. 2000. Automatic Composition of
Shogi Mating Problems. Games in AI Research (eds. H.J. van den Herik and
H. Iida), pp. 109-123, Institute for Knowledge and Agent Technology (IKAT),
Universiteit Maastricht, The Netherlands. ISBN 90-62 1-641 6-1.