Swindle (chess)

In chess, a swindle is a ruse by which a player in a losing position tricks their opponent and thereby achieves a win or draw instead of the expected loss.

[7] 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.

There are ways that players can maximize their chances of pulling off a swindle, including playing actively and exploiting time pressure.

[24][25] Fred Reinfeld and Irving Chernev commented, "Marshall's manner of extricating himself from his difficulties is reminiscent of an end-game by Rinck or Troitsky!

[31] This swindle enabled Evans to finish outright second in the tournament at 7½/11 (behind Bobby Fischer's historic 11–0 sweep), while Reshevsky was relegated to a tie for fourth–fifth place with 6½/11.

International Master (IM) Simon Webb in his book Chess for Tigers identified five "secrets of swindling":[40] Grandmaster (GM) John Nunn adds a caveat: when in a bad position, one must decide between two strategies, which he calls "grim defence" and "create confusion.

"Create confusion" entails trying to "gain the initiative, even at material cost, hoping to stir up complications and cause the opponent to go wrong.

"[44] Nunn cautions that, "If you decide to go for 'create confusion' then you should press the panic button sufficiently early to give yourself a reasonable chance of success.

"[44] Negi also notes that the prospective swindler should "keep enough options on the board so your opponent has a chance to see ghosts and lose his bearings.

[56][59] Likewise, GM Luděk Pachman remarks, "It is best to continue with one's sound strategic plan, and if one has the better position, it is completely illogical to fish in the murky waters of the opponent's time trouble.

"[61] Krogius notes that a player who is unhappy with the course of the game sometimes "enters time trouble with the idea of exploiting it as a form of psychological warfare.

This ... is often successful: the opponent, hoping to gain a quick victory during the other side's time trouble, becomes excited and loses the necessary critical approach.

[62] However, Krogius warns that one should deliberately get into time trouble only after a detailed assessment of a number of considerations, such as the complexity of the position, the opponent's character, and the likelihood of errors on his part.

[65] Pachman writes, "The rest of the game followed at lightning speed, with my opponent in no way short of time but clearly depressed by the piece sacrifice.

wins) 37.Qg5 Re1+ 38.Kh2 1–0[66] Similarly, if you have a lost position and can manage to induce your opponent to play quickly, you maximize the chances of a swindle.

In Chigorin–Schlechter, Ostend 1905,[72] (see diagram), a game between two of the leading players of the day, an unusual combination of stalemate and zugzwang enabled the great Schlechter to rescue a desperate position.

The game continued 62.Nd3 Nh2+ 63.Ke4 Ng4 Since White has no way to save the g-pawn other than repeating the position with 64.Kf3 Nh2+, Black keeps her knight actively placed rather than immediately capturing the pawn.

Blatny, Czechoslovakia 1956;[90] Portisch–Lengyel, Málaga 1964;[91] Matulović–Suttles, Palma de Mallorca Interzonal 1970;[92] Fuller–Basin, Michigan Open 1992;[93] Boyd–Glimbrant, Alicante 1992;[94] and Pein–de Firmian, Bermuda 1995.

(right-most diagram) Turning the tables: Black, although ahead a queen for a rook, is suddenly helpless against White's passed pawn on the seventh rank.

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!

In Zukertort–Steinitz, London 1883,[105] the future world champion, playing Black, had a difficult, possibly lost, game an exchange down, with his centralized king subject to attack by White's queen and two rooks.

The perpetual check is based on White's weak back rank combined with his slightly compromised king position (no h-pawn).

In Karpov–Csom, Bad Lauterberg 1977,[113] (left-most diagram), GM Csom has thoroughly outplayed the reigning world champion, and is a knight and pawn ahead with a completely winning position.

Miles' game against the Tunisian IM Slim Bouaziz from the 1979 Riga Interzonal[125] (see left-most diagram), is a fine example of using a surprise mating attack to swindle a win from a lost position.

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

Grandmaster Mark Taimanov, playing White, has a winning position because his bishop pair is very strong, his king is more active, and Black's pawns are weak.

The diagram at above left, a 1623 composition by Gioachino Greco, shows a straightforward example of forcing a draw by material insufficiency.

Of course, rather than embodying an instance of swindling proper, the decision of Fischerle to play 57...Rxg4 instead of 57...Kxg6 is based on general considerations regarding the dangerousness of connected passed pawns.

The position above left, the conclusion of an endgame study by the American master Frederick Rhine,[146] provides a more complicated example of forcing a draw by material insufficiency.

In Arshak Petrosian–Hazai, Schilde 1970[151] (left-most position), Black has a difficult endgame, since White can attack and win his a-pawn by force, and he has no counterplay.