Go back
Is this a legit Swindle?

Is this a legit Swindle?

Only Chess

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

I'm playing white and I'm down a piece and a pawn. But is it a legitimate swindle if you simply catch your opponent sleeping?

Vote Up
Vote Down

That's chess kung-fu

Vote Up
Vote Down

Looks to me like he just dropped the ball, should have moved out his knight to stop mate, which may not even work, Q-c6+

Vote Up
Vote Down

16.Qe2 is this a brilliancy or an example of the law of accidental compensation?

I predict its both.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by National Master Dale
16.Qe2 is this a brilliancy or an example of the law of accidental compensation?

I predict its both.
In truth I simply did not catch the bishop-check fork. If I had I would have made a different move. I don't think a my level I can see deep enough to intentionally make moves that a national master would consider "brilliant." But if you believe it was I would be very interested to know why.

Vote Up
Vote Down

To find out why simply look at the original game.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Hi

Your game was a 'grey' Swindle. You did not intend to lose the
Bishop. You kept active and Black tried to hold his position together
with a Queen v A Queen aand two active Rooks.
His overall bad play after he won the piece lost a game he was winning.

I say 'grey' because IMO a genuine swindle is when you set a trap
in a totally lost resignable position.
Your opponent misses it and losses or draws.
You have swindled a 100% win from your opponent.

A standard trap you can set anytime, winning or equal.
Only when you trick him out of a genuine win is it safe to call it a swindle.

So my greyness comes from the fact you set no trap just a series of
active good moves and Black let you in to mate him.