English Chess Forum

You may have seen my earlier swindle in a league game a few years ago, where despite being two pawns and much more besides down, I managed sacrifice a rook creatively to force a perpetual check that would lead to a draw by repetition. Today, in a game that was arranged such that my opponent can get a grade, this happened. 14. Bxh7?? was a total blunder; I liked the look of what was going on on f7, but it simply didn't work. My attempt to get out of the hole I'd self-created simply made things worse.

The time control was 60' + 10''/move, and I was down to 1 minute by the end, my opponent about 5. He seemed to panic more in the time trouble than I did...

[Event "Graded Friendly"] [Site "Aston University, Birmingham"] [Date "2011.12.20"] [Round "?"] [White "Holowczak, Alex"] [Black "Krishna, Unnat"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [PlyCount "100"] 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Bd3 Bd7 7. Bc2 Na5 8. O-O Ne7 9. g4 (9. dxc5 Qxc5 10. b4) 9... Bb5 10. Re1 Nec6 11. a3 cxd4 12. cxd4 Rc8 13. b3 Ne7 14. Bxh7 $4 g6 (14... Rxh7 15. Ng5 Rh4 16. Qf3 f5 17. exf6 gxf6 18. Nxe6) 15. Ng5 Bh6 16. Nxf7 Rxc1 17. Qxc1 Bxc1 18. Nxh8 Qxd4 19. Nc3 Qxg4+ 20. Kh1 Qf3+ 21. Kg1 Bd2 22. Nxb5 Bxe1 23. Nd6+ Kd7 24. Rxe1 Qh5 25. Bxg6 Qxh8 26. Be8+ Kc7 27. Nb5+ Kb6 28. Nd6 Nec6 29. f4 Nd4 30. Rb1 Nf5 31. b4 Nc4 32. Nxc4+ dxc4 33. Ba4 Qg7+ 34. Kf2 Qh7 35. Kg1 Nd4 36. Rd1 Nf3+ (36... Qe4 37. Rf1 Ne2+ 38. Kf2 Nxf4) 37. Kf2 Qe4 38. Rd6+ Kc7 39. Rd7+ Kc8 40. Re7 Qxf4 $4 (40... Nd4) 41. Re8+ Kc7 42. Re7+ Kb6 43. Rxe6+ Kc7 44. Re7+ Kd8 45. Re8+ Kc7 46. Re7+ Kb6 47. Re6+ Kc7 {48. Re7+ is a draw by repetition, but I only bothered to check for the position after 46. Rxe6+, so I was waiting for a repetition of that position!} 48. Re7+ Kb8 49. Re8+ Kc7 50. Re7+ {The fourth time this position has been on the board...} Kb6 {Here white stopped the clock, informed his opponent that 51. Re6+ would be a draw by repetition, and claimed a draw. With great disappointment and reluctance, this was accepted.} 1/2-1/2

I'm just shocked he didn't notice that 35... Ne3 is much stronger than 35 ... Nd4, due to the mating threats on g2 and f1. Surely an easy win?

Colin Patterson wrote:I'm just shocked he didn't notice that 35... Ne3 is much stronger than 35 ... Nd4, due to the mating threats on g2 and f1. Surely an easy win?

He had many opportunities to win; not just that one! The player's grade will only be about 100ish - he has improved much since he started - but the majority of his chess has been against other juniors. So he's used to either winning by move 20, or losing by move 20. Given he plays quite infrequently, he admits that he has no idea of how to play middlegames and endgames at all. In fact, this is probably one of the longest games (in terms of moves) he's ever played over-the-board!

I've just realised that the new PGN facility means it is possible to go back and add games to old threads. Anyone want to see the moves of that 149-move game I played last year? (It probably counts as a swindle).

I would be intersted if you want to post it up. The longest game I can recall of my own (recent) praxis is an 86 move effort McKenna-Paez 2010 LCC FIDE Open (7.61).
I lost the same ending in Short-Carlsen from the Classic that just ended. Having K,R & P v. k,r & 2p I was defending with R from side but suddenly decided to switch to doing so from behind and that let his k slip thru' and win.

John McKenna wrote: I lost the same ending in Short-Carlsen from the Classic that just ended. Having K,R & P v. k,r & 2p I was defending with R from side but suddenly decided to switch to doing so from behind and that let his k slip thru' and win.

Admittedly yours was the slightly more complex R+3 v R+2 which can enable the pawn majority to make progress.

As you point out, at move 78, the game was pretty much dead provided you just shuffle the rook sideways to defend your King on its g2 square. In 2010 I don't think there was an increment, was a 10.2 claim ever a possibility?

8/8/8/8/r5pk/8/3R2K1/8

White to move

There was no 10.2 possibility as there was increment. At the end of the game in the file I think it states the game continued to mate but in fact I resigned after he played 86... Rf3+.
At move 59 the same material as Short-Carlsen exists for a couple of half-moves.

2010 according to the entry form was 40/120 + 30 without increment
http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/assets/file ... _final.pdf

I think there was some discussion on the forum about whether, given 5 hours, that was better or worse than the 40/90 + 30 with 30 second increment that they used this year.

Or did they change 2010 to increment? I didn't play in 2010.

Roger de Coverly wrote:2010 according to the entry form was 40/120 + 30 without increment
http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/assets/file ... _final.pdf

I think there was some discussion on the forum about whether, given 5 hours, that was better or worse than the 40/90 + 30 with 30 second increment that they used this year.

2010 was definitely without an increment, so there was a possibility of a 10.2.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

John McKenna wrote: I lost the same ending in Short-Carlsen from the Classic that just ended. Having K,R & P v. k,r & 2p I was defending with R from side but suddenly decided to switch to doing so from behind and that let his k slip thru' and win.

Admittedly yours was the slightly more complex R+3 v R+2 which can enable the pawn majority to make progress.

As you point out, at move 78, the game was pretty much dead provided you just shuffle the rook sideways to defend your King on its g2 square. In 2010 I don't think there was an increment, was a 10.2 claim ever a possibility?

8/8/8/8/r5pk/8/3R2K1/8

White to move

As well as holding the second rank, as Roger suggests, do not Rd1 (for a back-rank defence) and Rd3 (for a Philidor defence) also work?

In 2010 it was 40 moves in 2 hrs. (then something like an additional 50 mins. but not added until time went to zero) with a 30 sec. increment from move 1. From memory and score that's roughly it. Quite generous.

OK, I stand corrected, Alex is right there was no increment.

To tell the truth (from score) at the end I still had 6 mins. and he 1 min. We had both been trying to avoid the draw - he to win on material and me to win on time. He didn't have to write since move 60 when he went to less than 5 mins.
We were last to finish and shook hands at end.
I think Angus is right to say there was more than one way to defend that would have worked for me but going to the back rank was probably my attempt to confuse us both.

Angus French wrote: As well as holding the second rank, as Roger suggests, do not Rd1 (for a back-rank defence) and Rd3 (for a Philidor defence) also work?

Using http://www.shredderchess.com/online-che ... abase.html, this tells us there are only 4 moves to lose in the starting position. The two ways to put the Rook en prise and the King moving to f1 or f2.

The critical position is this one a couple of moves later

3R4/8/8/8/6p1/7k/r7/6K1

where only Rd1 and Rd3 draw.

The general rule as outlined by Smyslov & Levenfish in their 1970s Batsford is that you draw as defender if you hold the queening square. You do though need to know the methods of maintaining this.

Alex, you claim this game to be a swindle, I have to disagree, I recall the 1970 film "Waterloo" in a scene where Christopher Plummer playing the Duke of Wellington upon questioning a private who was caught red handed stealing a pig who then proceeded to spin a plausible yarn about how the pig had come into his possession, Wellington when asked by a Sergeant how he should deal with the thief replied favourably, stating that "Here was someone who could defend an undefendable position".

Also from the same film Wellington is quoted as saying "Never interupt your enemy while he's making a mistake, that's bad manners" - Priceless!