Lucky v Resourceful

While the majority of the chess world is looking over the games of Anand and Topalov, I'd like to share one of mine from a disappointing weekend congress. I took the half point bye on Friday and lost 2 games horribly on Saturday. On Sunday I won a Caro-Kann where I inaccurately sacrificed a bishop for 3 pawns although my opponent didn't see how to refute it and lost in the endgame. My last game, however, has a bit more to it. I blundered the exchange reasonably early on (I blundered a lot this weekend) but fought back to grab some pawns. Some of the people who'd come from Bristol had a good chuckle saying I'd only been lucky to get away with it, but later analysis seems to show that my play was entirely sound.

It looks like the Law of Accidental Compensation has been discovered.

You donated the exchange and then he goes 27 Kh3. Why didn't he play 27 f5 I didn't look at the whole game critically but it looks like losers chess or some variant where you make eye-raising moves and your opponent obliges. 😀

Originally posted by enrico20
You donated the exchange and then he goes 27 Kh3. Why didn't he play 27 f5 I didn't look at the whole game critically but it looks like losers chess or some variant where you make eye-raising moves and your opponent obliges. 😀

Originally posted by Meadows
27. f5 fails pretty dramatically to the cheeky 27. ... Ng4+.

Sadly though, you and Dale have hit the nail on the head. I had ommitted the 3rd option; Q. Was I lucky or resourceful? A. You were both crap.