Swindling

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 4634
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Swindling

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:51 pm

Joey Stewart wrote:
Jonathan Rogers wrote:Whenever I write or refer to something thoughtful, I am always disappointed when Joey is the next person to post ...
Maybe next time you should put those thoughtful comments onto the forum instead of linking elsewhere - few, if any, people click on random links on the internet these days.
Random? You've not heard of KINGPIN? (Actually I hesitate to ask).

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Swindling

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:17 pm

This appears to be the game by Lasker as discussed in Kingpin



The source is
http://database.chessbase.com/js/apps/onlinedb/
searching not for Lasker but his lesser known opponent, von Scheve.

The previous move had been Qf3 which I would categorise as a tactical defence against Black playing c5. If c5 isn't possible, do we think White is better, given the extra pawn? Typical Lasker though, provoking a pawn sacrifice for some suffering with the inactivity of the a3 Knight.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 4634
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Swindling

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:37 pm

Thanks Roger. I invited the help of "some kind soul", but I never really doubted it would be you!

I think Black has enough or almost enough for the pawn. Admittedly it is not encouraging that the most "natural" move on the board loses at once. But it is not clear how White can proceed and consolidate his extra pawn either.

Whether Qf3 constitutes a "swindle" (in my terminology) is a moot point. It stops ...c5 but I am not sure whether it provokes it in any psychological sense; so maybe it is just a clever trap.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Swindling

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:01 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote: Whether Qf3 constitutes a "swindle" (in my terminology) is a moot point. It stops ...c5 but I am not sure whether it provokes it in any psychological sense; so maybe it is just a clever trap.
A fairly superficial engine test on the rest of the game suggests approximate equality throughout, with Qf3 not even being the proposed move. But Lasker games are notoriously difficult to understand even with an engine checking the tactics.

Arshad Ali
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: Swindling

Post by Arshad Ali » Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:24 pm

The swindle crucially depends on the opponent's psychology. In a winning position, the opponent is often already fantasising about the win, basking himself in glory, and imagining the pint he'll be downing. He thinks that because he has a winning position he deserves to win. That's where the carelessness and lapses of attention come from. Alternatively -- and almost as bad -- is when the opponent achieves a winning position and then in his fear of jeopardising the win starts playing in an excessively crabbed and cautious manner. This too can be exploited by a swindler who, having nothing to lose, can play va banque.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 8781
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Swindling

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:35 pm

One way of self-swindling is to tell yourself you mustn't be too cautious in a winning position (the "excessively crabbed and cautious manner" Arshad refers to), but to then play confident moves that 'increase' your advantage and overlook something. It is that overlooking something that can destroy confidence for a while and lead back to the cautious manner...

Arshad Ali
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: Swindling

Post by Arshad Ali » Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:44 pm

All's fair in love and war. And that includes swindling. Nothing reprehensible about it. And personally I've found a successful swindle in a lost position to be much sweeter than a solidly earnt vistory Swindling exploits psychology -- but a player uses psychology whenever he can. If I know a player likes tactically complex positions, I try to steer the game towards dry positional play in a closed position. If I know he prefers dry positional chess, I try to mix it up a bit so that he has to calculate in complex and chaotic positions. Psychology is key.

Ray Sayers

Re: Swindling

Post by Ray Sayers » Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:25 pm

Not my most proud moment:



Black to move and swindle :oops:

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 8781
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Swindling

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:37 pm

Is it 1...Qc1+ Rf1 (or Bf1)?? 2.Qxh6 0-1?

Barry Sandercock
Posts: 1356
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:52 am

Re: Swindling

Post by Barry Sandercock » Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:54 pm

If 1...Qc1(ch)why not 2.Qxc1?

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 3041
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Swindling

Post by MartinCarpenter » Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:57 pm

Because backwards moves are easy to miss? If that really did happen it was a bit much :)
(Not much else obvious to try though!)

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Swindling

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:02 pm

Barry Sandercock wrote:If 1...Qc1(ch)why not 2.Qxc1?
At a guess, one or both players was extremely short of time. As White you notice 1. .. Qa1+ which you plan to meet with 2. Bc1 maintaining the mate on h7 threat. When Black unexpectedly plays 1. .. Qc1+, you continue with your previously prepared move. ....

By some definitions of swindle that undoubtedly is one, if extremely transparent. You are trying to con your opponent by not playing reasonable moves.

Ray Sayers

Re: Swindling

Post by Ray Sayers » Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:44 pm

Qc1+ was in fact played.

It was a rapidplay game; white had over 10 minutes left, Black maybe 5. I had a good old ponder and thought this - Black is completely bust (I think it was one of my worst blunder filled games ever). I had been reading about the psychology of chess moves and that long range backward captures were the hardest to see, especially with a queen. Added to that, White must be sitting thinking only of the 'forward' queen move Qxh7 mate. A queen check to the back rank is met by Bf1 then mate on h7. So I had a good long ponder, thought 'what the hell' and played Qc1+. With plenty of time, white immediately picked up the bishop.

I'm sure there are less crude 'psychological' swindles out there. To compensate for my opponent, he was actually wiping the floor with everyone else in the tournament and still finished with 6/7 in 1st place.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4815
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford
Contact:

Re: Swindling

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:51 pm

I think my game against Gosling is a swindle by Jonathan's definition, come to think of it. 1...Nf4 not only sets up my own threat, but it undefends f8 - forcing me to meet 2.Qd6+ with 2...Ke8 - and it also undefends e7, tempting white into the suicidal 3.Bd8??. If I hadn't gone to f4 with the knight, white wouldn't have been able to see the quick finish that was apparently on.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Swindling

Post by Geoff Chandler » Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:23 pm

Hi Joey,

I agree, I never go to any link. If I think something is of interest I'll cut and
paste the main part of it and then add the link if people want to see if it is true.

But this...

"Swindles, are just as the name implies - snatching away a deserved victory because of a momentary
lapse in the opponents concentration, there was never any intention going into the game that the
fateful tactic as ever being steered towards, as a proper swindle tends to be a freak tactic which has
been overlooked in a winning position.

"Snatching away a deserved victory."

The game aint over till it is over. You don't deserve to win a game you lost.
You lost and if that is the case then you deserved to lose.

" there was never any intention going into the game...[of swindling]"
You must have heard of an opening trap. I've got a head full of opening traps
and they netted me a bag load of points.

"...as a proper swindle tends to be a freak tactic which has been overlooked in a winning position."

The swindler plays for and looks for the 'freak tactic'. So it's not a freak tactic.

And finally please don't throw a spun game into a computer.
You cannot swindle a computer.and it will not try to swindle you.

Here:



Drop that into your beloved computer. The human played 1...Qc1+ and won.
The toy will play 1...Qa1+ because it holds off the checkmate the longest.
2.Bf1 Qxf1+ 3.Rxf1 Kg8 and mate in a few.

Ray played a move and won that today's strongest computers would never play and lose.

Post Reply