Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 14 Aug '10 14:20 / 1 edit
    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?

  2. 14 Aug '10 15:01
    That's chess kung-fu
  3. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    14 Aug '10 15:18
    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+
  4. 14 Aug '10 15:25
    16.Qe2 is this a brilliancy or an example of the law of accidental compensation?

    I predict its both.
  5. 14 Aug '10 18:58
    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.
  6. 14 Aug '10 20:18
    To find out why simply look at the original game.
  7. 14 Aug '10 21:18
    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.