Interesting (chess term): definition and usage

Interesting

Definition

In chess slang, “interesting” is a flexible, often tongue‑in‑cheek label for a move, idea, or position that is unusual, unclear, risky, or creative. It frequently serves as a polite euphemism when a commentator doesn’t want to call a move bad, or when the evaluation is genuinely uncertain. In classical annotation, “interesting” maps closely to the symbol !? (a move that is intriguing and creates chances, but may not be objectively best). Its mirror image, ?!, leans closer to “dubious.” See also: Annotation symbols, Dubious.

How it’s used in chess

• Creative or offbeat choices: A player tries a rare line or a speculative idea—“interesting!”—that aims for surprise value and initiative rather than theoretical “best play.”
• Euphemism for a mistake: Streamers and commentators often say “interesting” right after a blunder to keep the tone light. Sometimes it’s code for “probably bad.” Related: Botez Gambit (humorous name for a queen blunder).
• Genuinely unclear positions: When the engine’s bar swings or the position is highly imbalanced, “interesting” acknowledges complexity and practical chances. See: Practical chances, Engine eval.
• Speculative sacrifices: Sacs that trade material for initiative get the “interesting” tag until analysis proves them sound or unsound. See: Speculative sacrifice, Swindle.

Strategic and historical significance

Calling something “interesting” signals that chess isn’t only about cold evaluation—it’s also about psychology, time management, and surprise. Hypermodern and modern approaches embrace imbalances and dynamic play; many now‑mainline ideas were once “interesting” gambits or novelties. Brilliancies often began life as “interesting tries” before post‑mortem analysis confirmed their soundness. See also: Brilliancy.

Examples

Example A (an “interesting” gambit idea with practical chances):

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5!? Black offers a pawn for long‑term queenside pressure, Benko‑style. Objectively risky, but rich in counterplay—classic “interesting” choice.

Replay:

Example B (“interesting” as a polite cover for a likely mistake):

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nd4?? 4. Nxe5. A commentator might say “Interesting…” to soften the blow—3...Nd4?? walks into tactics. White immediately wins a pawn and tempo.

Replay:

When to use or trust “interesting” moves

• Time control matters: In blitz or bullet, “interesting” surprises can be very effective. See: Blitz, Bullet.
• Evaluate compensation: If you’re sacrificing, look for concrete targets, open lines, and king safety—otherwise your “interesting” idea may just be material down. Watch for LPDO.
• Check with analysis later: Post‑game, compare your intuition with the engine’s verdict to learn whether the idea was sound, merely tricky, or outright dubious.

Famous contexts

• Kasparov vs. Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 1999: A cascade of sacrifices that many described as “interesting” during live commentary later entered history as a true brilliancy.
• Kasparov vs. Deep Blue, 1997: Several middlegame decisions were labeled “interesting” in real time as humans tried to interpret a machine’s style and intentions.
• AlphaZero vs. Stockfish (2017): AlphaZero’s pawn sacs were widely called “interesting” before engines and humans aligned on their strategic depth.

Common nuances

• “Interesting” can be sincere or ironic; tone and context matter.
• As an annotation, !? is closer to “interesting and possibly good,” while ?! is “interesting but probably inferior.”
• In online culture, “That’s… interesting” after a queen drop is playful shade. See also: Cheap shot, Trap.

Quick tip for improvement

Before playing an “interesting” move, ask: What’s the threat if my opponent finds the best reply? If you can’t identify concrete compensation or a clear plan, your idea may be more hopeful than helpful.

Related terms

• Annotation symbols (!?, ?!, !, ?)
• Dubious, Brilliancy, Swindle, Trap
• Speculative sacrifice, Engine eval, Practical chances

Fun fact

“Interesting” is so pervasive in streams and commentary that some viewers jokingly treat it as a diagnostic: if the eval bar drops after an “interesting,” it probably meant “oops.” Your won’t rise just by saying it—only by testing and refining those ideas in analysis.

Optional: your trend

How has your result rate in sharp, “interesting” openings changed over time?