Swindle (chess)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In chess, a swindle is a ruse by which a player in a losing position tricks his opponent, and thereby achieves a win or draw instead of the expected loss. It may also refer more generally to achieving a win or draw from a clearly losing position. Although "swindling" in general usage is synonymous with cheating or fraud, in chess the term does not imply that the swindler has done anything unethical or unsportsmanlike. Indeed, the best swindles can be quite artistic, and some are famous.

The American grandmaster Frank Marshall, a gifted tactician, was notorious for his many "Marshall swindles."[1] Perhaps the most celebrated is Marshall-Marco, Monte Carlo 1904. In the diagram at left, White's position looks hopeless. Black's b-pawn is two moves away from queening, and White's awkwardly placed knight and rook seem to have no way to stop it. White could play 45.Rxc7+, but Black simply responds 45...Kb8. Many players would resign here, but Marshall saw an opportunity to try to save his game. He continued 45.c6! Now Black should play 45...bxc6!, but disdained it because White could then play 46.Rxc7+ Kb8 47.Rb7+! Kxb7 48.Nc5+, winning Black's rook and stopping Black's pawn from advancing. Black should have played this line, however, because he still wins after 48...Ka7 49.Nxa4 Bd4! (trapping the knight) 50.Kf3 Ka6 51.Ke4 Ka5 52.Kxd4 Kxa4 53.Kc3 Ka3 and Black's pawn queens after all. Instead, Marco played 45...Be5?, mistakenly thinking that this would put an end to Marshall's tricks. The game continued 46.cxb7+ Kb8 (46...Kxb7? 47.Nc5+ wins the rook) 47.Nc5! Ra2+ 48.Kh3 b2 49.Re7! Ka7 Not 49...b1(Q)?? 50.Re8+ Ka7 51.Ra8+ Kb6 52.b8(Q)+, winning Black's newly created queen. 50.Re8! c6! 51.Ra8+ Kb6 52.Rxa2! b1(Q) (see position at right) White's resources finally seem to be at an end, but now Marshall revealed his deeply hidden point: 53.b8(Q)+! Bxb8 54.Rb2+! Qxb2 55.Na4+ Kb5 56.Nxb2. Amazingly, Marshall has caught Black's pawn after all, and is now even a pawn up. He continued to play with great ingenuity, and even won the game.[2] (Analysis by Khariton.)[3]

Swindles can occur in myriad different ways, but as illustrated below certain themes are often seen.

Contents 1 Stalemate 2 The weak back rank 3 Perpetual check 4 The surprise mating attack 5 Material insufficiency 6 Building a fortress 7 Zugzwang 8 Multiple themes 9 See also 10 References 11 External links

[edit] Stalemate

One classic way of saving a draw in a losing position is by stalemate. In that article, see Gelfand-Kramnik,[4] the "Swindle of the Century" Evans-Reshevsky,[5] Pilnick-Reshevsky,[6] (scroll down to 12th comment, by "Resignation Trap," but note that Black's 26th move should be ...Rc7, not ...c7) and Reshevsky-Geller.[7]

Another famous Marshall swindle is Marshall-MacClure, New York 1923 (diagram at left).[8] (No. 15) Marshall, a rook down, played 1.Rh6! Rxh6 2.h8(Q)+! Rxh8 3.b5! Now Black is up two rooks, but the only way to avoid stalemate is 3...Rd7 4.cxd7 (threatening 5.d8(Q)+, forcing stalemate) c5?? 5.bxc6 Kb8 6.Kxb6, when White even wins. Decades later, someone pointed out an alternative draw with 1.Rg6! fxg6 2.h8(Q)+ Rxh8 3.b5 or 1...Re8 2.Rg8 Rb8 3.b5.[9] (No. 11)

In Tchigorin-Schlechter, Ostend 1905[10] (diagram at right), a game between two of the strongest players of the day, an unusual combination of stalemate and zugzwang enabled the great Schlechter to rescue a desperate position. Schlechter, in extreme time trouble, played 44...Qc7+! Tchigorin, thinking Schlechter had blundered, responded 45.Qb6+?, seemingly forcing the trade of queens. Schlechter's 45...Ka8!! forced an immediate draw, since 46.Qxc7 is stalemate, and 46.Ka6 Qc8+! 47.Ka5 Qc7! (zugzwang) leaves White unable to make progress.

As the above game illustrates, being in time trouble is sometimes actually helpful to the prospective swindler, whose opponent may assume that a move is a time pressure-induced blunder rather than a trap. See also this account of a swindle by the late Czechoslovak-German GM Ludek Pachman, who deliberately wasted almost an hour on his clock in order to get into time trouble and thereby lull his opponent into being swindled.

In Kasparov-McDonald, simultaneous exhibition, Great Britain 1986,[11] the world champion had a winning advantage, which he could have converted after (for example) 54.Qd6+ Kg7 55.c6. Instead, he played 54.Bxe4??, allowing 54...Rxg3+! 55.Kxg3 Qe5+! 1/2-1/2, since the forced 56.Qxe5 gives stalemate (diagram at right). Note that 55.Kh4!? (instead of 55.Kxg3), with the strong threat of 56.Qh7#, would have been met by 55...Rg4+! 56.Kxg4 (forced) Qd7+! 57.Qxd7 with a different stalemate.

Other swindles based on stalemate include Congdon-Delmar, New York 1880[12]; Post-Nimzowitsch, Barmen Masters 1905[13]; Schlechter-Wolf, Nuremberg 1906[14]; Janowski-Grünfeld, Marienbad 1925[15]; Bernstein-Smyslov, Groningen 1946[16]; Horowitz-Pavey, U.S. Championship 1951[17]; Fichtl-F. Blatny, Czechoslovakia 1956[18]; Portisch-Lengyel, Málaga 1964[19]; Matulović-Suttles, Palma de Mallorca Interzonal 1970 [20]; Fuller-Basin, Michigan Open 1992[21]; and Boyd v. Glimbrant, Alicante 1992.[22]

[edit] The weak back rank

Mating threats along the opponent's back rank often enable one to win or draw from a lost position. An example is seen in Rhine-Nagle, U.S. Masters 1997 (position at left). Black, a pawn up with White's king in danger, decides that it's time to finish White off, forgetting that even a losing position may have defensive resources. Black continued 26...Rg5 27.Rhg1 Ra2?? A powerful-looking move, threatening mate in two, but it actually loses by force. Black could have kept a winning position with (for example) 27...Qf4+ 28.g3 Qf2+ 29.Rg2 Qf7, or 28.Kh1 Rg3 29.Qd1 Raa3 (threatening Rxh3+) 30.Qf1 Qh4 (renewing the threat) 31.Kh2 g6! (31...Ra2 32.Qf5! is weaker) and now Black is winning after 32.Ra1 Qxb4; 32.Rb2 Rgd3; or 32.Rc1? Ra2! (threatening mate on h3) 33.Kh1 Raxg2! 28.d6+ Kh8 The only reasonable move. White wins after 28...Qf7 29.dxc7! Ra8 30.Rgd1! Qxb3 31.Rd8+ Kf7 32.Rxb3 or 28...Kf8 29.Rbf1! Rxg2+ 30.Rxg2 Qxf1 31.Qxa2. 29.Qxa2!! Qxa2 30.dxc7! (diagram at right) Turning the tables: Black, despite being ahead a queen for a rook, is suddenly helpless against White's passed pawn on the seventh rank. Qc2 29...Qa8 30.Rbd1 Rf5 31.Rd8+ Rf8 32.Rgd1, and 29...Qg8 30.Rgd1 Rf5 31.Rd8 Rf8 32.Rbd1, also win for White. 30.Ra1! The threat of a back-rank mate decides the game. 30.Rbc1? Rxg2+! 31.Rxg2 Qxc1 32.Ra2! Qf4+ 33.Kg2 Qg5+ would allow Black to draw by perpetual check. h6 If 30...Qxc7, 31.Ra8+ and mate next move. The game concluded: 31.Ra8+ Kh7 32.c8(Q) Qe4 33.Qg8+ Kg6 34.Rf8 1-0 (Analysis by Fritz 8.)

In de Firmian-Shirazi, U.S. Championship 1986[23] (diagram at above left), GM de Firmian is ahead three pawns, normally an easily winning material advantage at this level. IM Shirazi played 27...Qg6! attacking White's rook and inviting White to take another pawn. GM Robert Byrne, annotating the game in the New York Times, noted that de Firmian could have consolidated his great material advantage with 28.Rb2! Re8 29.Bd2! (29.Be3? Rxe3! 30.fxe3 Qg3! forces White to take perpetual check with 31.Qe8+ Kh7 32.Qh5+ Kg8 33.Qe8+.).[24] Instead, he took the bait with 28.Rxb5?? Rxf2 Now Black threatens 29...Rf1#, and White loses his queen after either 29.Kg1 Bh2+! or 29.Be3 Rf1+ 30.Bg1 Rxg1+! 31.Kxg1 Bh2+. White tried 29.Qa8+ Rf8 30.Rg5, but now 30...Qe4!, the "marvelous Marshall masher" (Byrne), ended the game, since 31.Qxe4 allows 31...Rfl#.

In Zukertort-Steinitz, London 1883[25], the world champion, playing Black, had a difficult, possibly lost, game an exchange down, with his centralized king subject to attack by Black's queen and two rooks. He played 27...Qd4+! (driving White's king to the corner) 28.Kh1 Rxf4! White cannot capture the rook because of the back-rank mate with Qd1. He could retain his large advantage (according to Fritz 8) with a rook move along the first rank, such as 29.Rb1, when 29...Qxb2!? could be met by 30.Re3+. Instead, White played 29.Re1+ Re4 30.Rxe4+?? Qxe4 31.Qxa7 (diagram at right), intending 31...Qe1+ 32.Qg1. However, Steinitz slammed the door shut with 31...b6! when the only way White could have stopped the back-rank mate was by giving up his rook (e.g. 32.Re3 Qxe3 33.h3), leaving him a knight down. Zukertort resigned.

[edit] Perpetual check

Draw by perpetual check is another oft-seen way of swindling a draw from a lost position. The position at left is from Ivanchuk-Moiseenko, Russian Team Championship, Sochi 2005.[26] Black is down two pawns against the world's sixth highest-rated player. Worse, Ivanchuk's pieces dominate the board. IM Malcolm Pein notes that after almost any sensible move, for example 30.Qc2, Black would be completely lost.[27] White would then threaten 31.Rd6 pinning the knight to the queen, and neither 30...Nf6 31.Bxf6 gxf6 32.Qxh7# nor 30...Nc5 31.Ree7 is an adequate response. 30.Qc2 would also guard against a possible ...Qd1+, the significance of which becomes apparent after seeing the game continuation.

Moiseenko met Ivanchuk's 30.Rb7?? with 30...Nf8!! This not only threatens 31...Nxe6, but also enables Black to meet 31.Rxb8 with 31...Qd1+ 32.Kh2 Qh5+ 33.Kg1 Qd1+, drawing by perpetual check. The perpetual check is based on White's weak back rank combined with his slightly compromised king position (no h-pawn). Note how pieces that are well-placed for attacking purposes may be misplaced for defensive purposes. White's rook on e6 was well placed when White had the initiative, but is of no use in stopping the threatened perpetual check. (Similarly, in Rhine-Nagle, Black's rook on g5 was an excellent attacking piece, but was poorly placed to defend Black's black rank or stop White's passed c-pawn.)

White tried 31.Rh6, but could not avoid the perpetual: 31...Rxb7 32.Qxb7 Qd1+ 33.Kh2 Rh5+ 34.Rxh5 34.Kg3!? (hoping for 34...Rxh6?? 35.Qxg7#) is met by 34...Rg5+! and White must repeat moves with 35.Kh2! Rh5+, since 35.Kh3?? Qh1#; 35.Kh4?? Qg4#; and 35.Kf4 Qg4# all get mated. 34...Qxh5+ 35.Kg3 Qg5+ 36.Kf3 Qf5+ 1/2-1/2 since White cannot escape the perpetual check.

Sometimes perpetual check can even save the draw in a very simplified ending. In Keres-Eliskases, Noordwijk 1938 [28] (diagram at left), Black seems to be in desperate straits: he can win either of White's pawns, but then the other will queen, leaving White with a theoretical win in the queen versus rook ending. However, the players agreed to a draw after 56...Rb6+! 57. Kc1 Rh6! Because of continuous checks and mate threats from Black's rook, White will never have time to queen either pawn. For instance, 58.Kd1 Kd3 59.Ke1 Ke3 60.Kf1 Kf3 61.Kg1 Rg6+! 62.Kh2 Rh6+! 63.Kg1 Rg6+ 64.Kf1 Rh6! 65.Ke1 Ke3 66.Kd1 Kd3 67.Kc1 Kc3 68.Kb1 and now Black even has a choice of draws: (a) 68...Rb6+ 69.Ka2 Ra6+! or (b) 68...Rh1+ 69.Ka2 Rh2+ 70.Ka3 Rh1! 71.Ka4 Kc4 72.Ka5 Kc5 73.Ka4 (forced) Kc4 etc.

[edit] The surprise mating attack

A surprise mating attack is another way to swindle a win or draw from a lost position. In Karpov-Csom, Bad Lauterberg 1977[29] (diagram at left), GM Csom has thoroughly outplayed the reigning world champion, and is a knight and pawn ahead with a completely winning position. Karpov's last move, 49.Rd7 (from d1), looks to be a last gasp before resigning. Csom played the solid-looking 49...Nf8??, saving the attacked knight and attacking White's rook. But after Karpov's 50.Nf5!! (diagram at right), Csom resigned. White threatens both 51.Rh7+! Nxh7 52.Qg7# and 51.Qh2+! Kg8 (51...Nh4 52.Qxh4+ does not help) 52.Qg3+ followed by Qg7#, and there is no way to stop both threats. 50...Nxd7 and 50...gxf5 stop the former threat, but not the latter. Tim Krabbé considers 50.Nf5!! one of the most fantastic moves ever played.[30]

Instead, Csom could have won with 49...Ng5! Now 50.Nf5!? would be met by 50...exf5 51.Qh2+ Kg8 52.Qh6 Re1+ 53.Kh2 (53.Kf2 Qf3#) 53...Rh1+! 54.Kxh1 Nf4+ 55.Rd5 Nxd5 and wins. If instead 50.Nh5!? Rg8 51.Nxf6 (or 51.Rg7 Nh4) Nh4! threatening 52...Qg2# (note that White cannot force mate with 52.Rh7+, since 52...Nxh7 gives discovered check by the rook).

Karpov perpetrated another such swindle in the 17th game of his 1978 world championship match against Viktor Korchnoi.[31] Bent Larsen wrote in his book on the match that Korchnoi "lost a position it seemed impossible to lose." Korchnoi has had a large advantage for most of the game, which Karpov has been desperately trying to draw. From the position at left, Korchnoi would still have all the winning chances after 35.Rxh7 Rxa4. Instead, Korchnoi played 35.Rd7+(?) Driving Black's king toward White's, though the significance of this is not yet apparent. 35...Ke3 36.Rf3+ Ke2 37.Rxh7 Ncd2! A diabolical move, actually encouraging Korchnoi to hold onto his a-pawn. 38.Ra3 Rc6! Korchnoi has managed to get into some difficulties, but could still hold easily enough with 39.g3! Nf3+ 40.Kg2 Ne1+ 41.Kh1 Rf6 42.Ra2+ Kf1= (analysis by Crafty chess engine). Instead, in time trouble, he played the natural 39.Ra1?? Nf3+!! 0-1 (diagram at right) A horrific end: Black mates after 40.Kh1 Nf2 or 40.gxf3 Rg6+ 41.Kh1 Nf2. This game was critical to the outcome of the match, since Karpov won by the narrowest possible margin: 6 wins to 5, with 21 draws.[32]

The late British grandmaster Tony Miles was an accomplished swindler. His game against the Tunisian IM Slim Bouaziz from the 1979 Riga Interzonal[33] (see diagram at above left), is a fine example of using a surprise mating attack to swindle a win from a lost position. The game shows a subtle psychological build-up to a swindle by the swindler, and deadly overconfidence (or perhaps zeitnot) by the "swindlee." Bouaziz has completely outplayed Miles, and is on the verge of a major upset. Bouaziz is up a rook for a bishop and has a simple plan: queening his c-pawn. White's king is a little drafty, but seems to be well-defended by White's queen and pawns clustered around it. The game continued 40...Rh1 Shuffling about aimlessly with his rook, or so it seems. Now 41.Rxh5! really would have left Black with a hopeless position, but White didn't see the need. 41.c6 h4! Of course, the pawn is immune (42.Qxh4?? Qg1#). White sees that on 42.c7, he has to worry about 42...Rxh3!? 43.Kxh3 Qh1+ 44.Qh2 Qxf3+. He could still win with 45.Kxh4 Be7+ 46.g5 Qe4+ 47.Kg3! Qe3+ 48.Kg2! Qe4+ 49.Kf1! Qf3+ 50.Rf2!, but understandably prefers to avoid such complications. 42.Rcd2! Now White can meet 42...Rxh3? with 43.Rd1! Rg3+ 44.Qxg3 and wins. 42...Rc1 43.Rc2 Qb1! Now 44.Rxc1 Qxc1 would leave White hard-pressed to both save his c-pawn and protect his king against a possible perpetual check. 44.Rdd2! Rh1! (see diagram at above right) The rook returns to h1; White, his pawn on the verge of promotion, sees nothing to fear. 45.c7?? 45.g5!, giving White's king a flight square, would still have won easily. 45...Rxh3!! White suddenly is in deep trouble, with Black threatening 46...Qh1#. Had White appreciated the danger, he could still have drawn with 46.Qf1! Rg3+ 47.Kf2 Rxf3+ 48.Kxf3 Qxf1+ 49.Ke4 Qe1+ and with White's pawn so far advanced, Black must be content with a draw by perpetual check (analysis by Crafty). Not realizing the seriousness of his predicament, White played 46.Kxh3?? Qh1+ 47.Qh2 Qxf3+ 48.Kxh4 Be7+ 49.g5 49.Kh5 g6+ 50.Kh6 Qe3+ forces mate. 49...Bxg5+! 0-1 Too late, Bouaziz sees 50.Kxg5 f6+ 51.Kh4 g5#! (or 51.Kg6 Qg4#!).

David Bronstein, in his immortal losing game, valiantly but unsuccessfully tried to swindle Bogdan Sliwa with a surprise mating attack.

[edit] Material insufficiency

Sometimes a player who is behind in material may achieve a draw by exchanging off, or sacrificing for, all of the opponent's pawns, leaving a position (for example, two knights versus lone king) where the superior side still has a material advantage but cannot force checkmate. (Properly speaking, this may or may not be a "swindle," depending on whether the superior side missed a clear win earlier.) The inferior side is also sometimes able to achieve an ending that is theoretically still lost, but where the win is difficult and may be beyond the opponent's abilities (for example, bishop and knight versus lone king;[34] queen versus rook;[35] two knights versus pawn, which is sometimes a win for the knights;[36] or two bishops versus knight[37][38]).

The diagram at left shows a simple example of forcing a draw by material insufficiency. Black, although two pawns down, draws easily with 1...Bxa3![39] Then 2.bxa3 is a standard book draw, since White's bishop is of the "wrong color" from the rook pawn (i.e., it moves on the squares opposite in color to that of the pawn's queening square) and thus can never drive Black's king from the a8 corner. 2.b3 (avoiding 2...Bxb2!) is best, but gives no realistic winning chances.

Schmidt-Schaefer, Rheinhessen 1997 (diagram at right), is another straightforward example. Black has connected passed pawns, but if White can sacrifice his knights for them he can reach the drawn two knights versus lone king ending. Thus, 50.Nfe4! threatened to capture both pawns with the knights. 50...dxe4 51.Nxe4 Kd5 52.Nxc5! would also achieve that goal. Black tried 50...d4, but agreed to a draw after 51.Nxc5+ Kd6 52.Nb5+! Kxc5 53.Nxd4! (Analysis from ChessBase 9, Mega 2004 database.)

The two examples above arguably are not true swindles, but rather the inferior side's exploitation of a defensive resource available in the position. However, Chandler-Susan Polgar, Biel 1987[40] (diagram at left) is a bona fide swindle. Polgar has just played 53...Nh6!? (from g8), transparently playing for a rook pawn and wrong-colored bishop draw. GM Chandler obligingly played 54.gxh6+??, expecting 54...Kxh6 55.Kf6! when he will win because Black cannot get her king to h8. Polgar, however, responded 54...Kh8! with the standard draw. White's possession of a second h-pawn is immaterial, and the game concluded 55.Bd5 Kh7 56.Kf7 Kh8! 1/2-1/2

The position at left, the conclusion of a chess problem by the American master Frederick Rhine, provides a more complicated example of forcing a draw by material insufficiency. White draws with 5.Nxc4+! Nxc4 If 5...Kc6 6.Nxb6 Kxb6 7.Rxb2+, White's rook draws easily against Black's knight and bishop. 6.Rxb6+ Now Black's best try is 6...Kd5! or 6...Ke7!, when the endgame of rook against two knights and a bishop is a theoretical draw, as in Karpov-Kasparov, Tilburg 1991[41] and confirmed by the Shredder six-piece database.[42] The more natural 6...Nxb6+ leads to a surprising draw after 7.Kd8! (diagram at right), when any bishop move stalemates White, and any other move allows 8.Kxe8, when the two knights cannot force checkmate.

[edit] Building a fortress

Building a fortress is another method of saving an otherwise lost position. It is often seen in the endgame, for example in endings with bishops of opposite colors, where the superior side is often unable to win with two or even three extra pawns.

In Arshak Petrosian-Hazai, Schilde 1970[43] (position at left), Black has a difficult endgame, since White can attack and win his a-pawn by force, and he has no counterplay. Realizing how difficult his position is, Black tried the amazing 45...Qb6!? White replied with the obvious 46.Nxb6+?, but this was actually a critical mistake, enabling Black to establish an impenetrable fortress. White should have carried out his plan of winning Black's a-pawn, for example with 46.Qc1 (threatening 47.Nxb6+ cxb6 48.h4! gxh4 49.Qh1 and Qh3, winning) Qa7 47.Qd2 followed by Kb3, Nc3, Ka4, and Na2-c1-b3. 46...cxb6 Now Black threatens 47...h4, locking down the entire board with his pawns, so White tries to break the position open. 47.h4 gxh4 48.Qd2 h3! 49.gxh3 Otherwise 49...h2 draws. 49...h4! (diagram at right) Black has established his fortress, and now can draw by moving his king around. The only way White could attempt to breach the fortress would be a queen sacrifice at some point. None of these give White winning chances as long as Black keeps his king on the a, b, and c files, where it is well-placed to deal with either a passed b-pawn (following Qxa5) or a passed d-pawn (following Qxe5). The players shuffled their kings, and White's queen, around for six more moves before agreeing to a draw.

[edit] Zugzwang

Zugzwang, though most often used by the superior side, is sometimes available as a swindling technique to the inferior side. Tchigorin-Schlechter above is one such instance.

In the position at left, the natural 1...Kb4 would be a fatal blunder, turning a win into a loss after 2.Kd5!, reaching the famous trébuchet position (diagram at right), where whoever is on move loses, a situation described as "full-point mutual zugzwang." Instead, 1...Kb3! 2.Kd5 Kb4 wins.

An extraordinary example of using zugzwang to swindle one's way out of a dead lost, complicated endgame occurred in the position at left.[44] On the previous move Black, with an easily winning position, had played 73...d4? and White responded 74.R(from d2)-d3!!, when Black, a knight up with three dangerous passed pawns, suddenly must fight for a draw. Tim Krabbé explains that the pawns on d4 and e4 are blocked and pinned, the knight is bound to the defense of e4, the rook is bound to the defense of d4, and the pawn on b4 is bound to the defense of the knight. Krabbé analyzes as best for Black 74...b3! 75.Rxd4 Rxd4 76.Rxc3 Rd8 77.Rxb3 Re8 78.Re3 Re5 79.Rc3 (79.Kxf6? Rxa5 82.Kg6 Ra1 83.f6 Rg1+ wins) Re8 80.Re3 Re5 81.Rc3 and the game will end in a draw by repetition of moves. Instead, Black played 74...Nb5? 75.Rxe4 Nd6 76.Re6 Rc6 77.Rxd4 Rxh6+ 78.Kxh6 Nxf5+ 79.Kg6 1-0

[edit] Multiple themes

Some swindles combine more than one of these themes. In Beliavsky-Christiansen, Reggio Emilia 1987-88[45], Christiansen pulls off a masterful swindle, beginning with a knight sacrifice and four offered queen sacrifices in hopes of perpetual check, and ending with a sacrifice of queen and both rooks to achieve stalemate. In the position diagrammed at left, Black's game is crumbling. White has the initiative over the whole board. He threatens Black's pawn on f7, and if Black defends it with 29...Nh6, 30.Qb6 will win Black's c-pawn and the game (if 30...Qd7, 31.Nxf7!). In desperation, Christiansen counterattacked with the remarkable 29...Nxf2!? 30.Kxf2 Ra3 31.Bxf7+ Kg7 32.Qe6 Ra2+. Here, Byrne noted in the New York Times that after 33.Qxa2 Rxa2+ 34.Bxa2 Ng4+ 35.Kg1 Qa7 36.Bb1 Qa3 37.Bd3 Qb2 38.Rc2 Qd4+, "White will experience difficult technical problems."[46] Instead, the game continued 33.Kg1 R8a3!, hoping for 34.Qxe7? Rxg3+ and the rook gives perpetual check along the third rank. Nor was 34.Kh1 Rxg3! 35.Qxa2 Ng4! appealing for White. Beliavsky preferred 34.Ne8+! Now 34...Nxe8? 35.Qxg6+ mates next move, and there is no perpetual check after 34...Qxe8? 35.Bxe8 Rxg3+ 36.Kh1. Undeterred, Christiansen played 34...Kh6! 35.Nxf6 35.Qxe7 Rxg3+ or 35.Qxf6 Qxf6 still leads to perpetual check. 35...Rxg3+ 36.Kh1 Qxf7! Offering the queen a third time, again hoping for perpetual check after 37.Qxf7? Rh3+ or 37.Ng8+? Qxg8! 37.Rd7! White offers his own queen sacrifice: if 36...Qxe6, 37.Rh7#! Another clear win was 37.Ng4+! hxg4 (37...Kg7 38.Qxe5+ is even worse) 38.Qxf7 Rh3+ 39.Kg1 Rg3+ 40.Kf1! Rf3+ 41.Qxf3, leaving White a rook up. 37...Qxf6! (see diagram at right) Black's last gasp, offering the queen yet a fourth time. 38.Qxf6?? White thinks that he can finally take the queen safely, since now there is no perpetual. White wins after 38.Rh7+! Kxh7 39.Qxf6 Rh3+ 40.Kg1 Rg3+ 41.Kf1 Rh3 41.Qe7+ Kh6 (41...Kg8? 42.Qe8+ Kh7 43.Qd7+ wins the rook) 42.Qg5+ Kh7 43.Kg1 Raa3 44.Kg2. 38...Rh2+! 1/2-1/2 After 39.Kxh2 Rg2+! 40.Kh3 Rg3+! 41.Kh2 Rg2+! 42.Kh1 Rg1+!, Black draws by perpetual check or stalemate. Noam Elkies observes that this is an "even more impressive stalemate swindle" than the Evans-Reshevsky "Swindle of the Century."[47]

Christiansen achieved another incredible, if less dramatic, swindle from a dead-lost position in Burden-Christiansen, Las Vegas 1992 (diagram at left). Down a queen for a knight and pawn against an opponent rated about 2200[48] (master-level), he managed to outplay his opponent and win![49]

The remainder of the game was:

26...Ng4 27.Kb1 Nh6 28.Bc4 Ng4 29.Qd3 Rd8 30.d7 e4 31.Qd6 Be5 32.Qe7 32.Qxb6! Rxd7 (or 32...Bf6 33.h3) 33.Qe6! Rd8 34.h3 wins a piece. Bf6 33.Qe8+ Kg7 34.Qf7+ Kh6 35.h3 Ne3 36.Qxf6 36.Be6! Rxd7 37.Qe6 37.Rf4! (threatening Rh4#) Nxg2 38.Rxf5 intending Qf8+ is crushing) Rd4 38.Re1 Nxg2 Christiansen evidently felt this gave better swindling chances than 38...Nxc4 39.c3 Nd2+ 40.Kc2 Rd8 (or 40...Nb3 41.Rd1!) 41.Qxb6. 39.Rg1 Nf4 40.Qg8 e3 41.Qf8+ Kh5 42.h4 42.Qg7! h6 43.Be2+! mates quickly. Rxc4 43.Qf6 White mates with 43.Rg5+! Kxh4 44.Qh6+ Nh5 45.Rg1! Rg4 46.Rh1+ Kg3 47.Qxe3+ Kg2 48.Rg1+ Kh2 49.Qf2+ Kh3 50.Rh1#. 43.Qf7! or 43.Qg8! is also crushing, threatening both Qxh7# and Black's rook. Kh6 44.Qg5+ 44.Qf8+ allows White to transpose to the above lines, but even better is 44.Rg5! (threatening Qf8#) Ne6 (44...Nh5 allows 45.Rxg6+! hxg6 46.Qh8# or 45.Rxh5+! Kxh5 46.Qg5#). 45.Rxg6+! Kh5 46.Rg5+! Kxh4 47.Qh6#. Kg7 45.Qe7+ 45.Rd1! (threatening Rd7+) Rd4 46.Rxd4 cxd4 47.Qxf4 wins easily. Kh6 46.Qxe3? 46.Qg5+! Kg7 47.Rd1! transposes to the above line. Re4 47.Qf2 Nh3 48.Qd2+ Kh5 49.Re1 Rxe1+ 50.Qxe1 f4 51.Qe7 h6 52.Qf6? 52.Qf7! Kxh4 53.Qxg6 h5 54.Kc1 f3 55.Kd2 and now (a) 55...f2 56.Qg2 zugzwang; (b) 55...Nf4 56.Qf5! and if 56...Kg3 57.Qg5+ wins the knight; (c) 55...Ng5 56.Qf5 wins. g5 53.hxg5 hxg5 54.Qxb6 f3 55.Qxc5 Kg4 56.Qe3 Kg3 57.c4 Kg2 58.c5 f2 59.Qe4+ Kh2 60.Qf3 g4! 61.Qe2? White could draw with 61.Qxg4 f1(Q)+ 62.Kc2 Qf2+ 63.Kb1 Qf1+ 64.Kc2 Qb5 (64...Nf2 65.Qf4+ Kg2 66.Qg5+ Kf3 67.Qf6+ Ke3 68.Qh6+ Kd4 69.Qd6+ Ke4 70.Qg6+ Kd5 71.Qd6+ Ke4 72.Qg6+ Kf4 73.Qd6+ Ke4 draws by repetition of moves) 65.Qb4. g3 62.c6 g2 63.Qe5+ Kh1 64.c7 g1(Q)+ 65.Kc2 f1(Q) 66.Kc3 Qc1+ 67.Kb4 Qb6+ 68.Kxa4 Qcc6+ 0-1 (Annotations from chessgames.com)[50]

National Master Todd Barwick wrote of this game, "The best strategy of how to play in utterly lost positions was demonstrated by GM Larry Christiansen in his 'famous' game with Colorado Master Jim Burden several years ago. Christiansen hung his queen (!) in the early middle game and had a hopelessly lost position. He then moved quickly, hoping to get Jim caught up in a faster paced game where the probability of Jim making a mistake was increased. The idea worked as the game actually speeded up to a blitz pace where Jim ended up blundering away a game he would have never lost had he taken his time. Always play out games until the complications have disappeared and things are clearly hopeless."[51]

[edit] See also

• Back rank checkmate
• Blunder (chess)
• Draw (chess)
• Fortress (chess)
• Perpetual check
• Stalemate
• Zugzwang
• Blank check

[edit] References

• Simon Webb, "Fortune Favors the Lucky" chapter in Chess for Tigers, Third Edition, Batsford, 2005. ISBN 1-71348-988-X
• Lev Alburt and Larry Parr, Back to Basics column, Chess Life, October 1994
• Bent Larsen, "Karpov vs. Korchnoi: World Chess Championship, 1978," Unwin Paperbacks, October 1978. ISBN 0-04-794008-5

[edit] External links

• Exeter Chess Club, Swindle your way to success
• Lev Khariton, Frank Marshall, The King of Traps
• Jack O'Keefe, Stalemate!