Never say die! redux

Last Christmas I published Latino-Dumas, a game in which White on move 3 hung an entire piece to a queen check. Rather than resigning (as some others had done in the same position), Latino played on and went on to win the game! Here's a similar example: White blunders a piece on move 5, also to ...Qa5+, yet goes on to win. White's 6.Nc3 is an improvement on GM Ivan Farago's "Resigns," as in Farago-Bliumberg, 1994. To be precise, 6.Nc3! had been seen before, in Kunte (2536!)-Varga (2494!), 2008. That game ended in a draw!

How strong was the loser of our subject game, who won a whole piece on move 5, but went on to lose? She is Anna Ushenina, who at the time of this game was rated 2458. Later in the year, she went on to win the Women's World Championship, thereby automatically becoming a grandmaster.

It's fascinating to analyze this game with an engine. How could a strong player go from being a clear piece up to losing the game? She didn't play a terrible blunder, but rather a number of second-best moves: 11...b5 (11...Qb4! 12.Qe2 Bxd4-+), the weakening 14...gxf5?! (14...O-O), 20...Bb7?! (20...Qb5), the decentralizing 21...Nh5?!, 23...a5? (23...Nhf6!), and 24...Bg7? (24...Nhf6!). Her final mistake was 25...Ndf6? According to Houdini 3, she would still have kept a large advantage with 25...a4!, driving the bishop off the a2-g8 diagonal, e.g. 26.Bd1 Ndf6 27.Be2 (27.e5 c5! 28.exf6 Nxf6!) Kf8 28.Nd6 exd6! 29.Bxb5 cxb5 30.d5 Re8. Of course, all of this is much easier to see with Houdini, rather than a ticking clock, next to you.

The moral(s) of the story? Don't expect a "won game" to win itself. Stay alert and try to play the most accurate and incisive moves. Don't be afraid to give back some material to simplify the position into one that you can win more easily and/or gives the opponent fewer counterchances.

On the other side of the board: if you have a losing position, don't mentally give up the game. Keep the position complicated, and keep setting problems for your opponent. Be alert to tactical chances. Don't resign unless you have no realistic chance of winning or drawing the game. (This will vary depending not only on the position, but also on your strength, your opponent's strength, and the clock situation. Ushenina would probably have won this game if at had been played at a standard time control rather than rapid.)

Never say die!

The shortest decisive master game that wasn't a forfeit or protest is Z. Đorđević–M. Kovačević, Bela Crkva Open 1984, which went 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 c6!? 3.e3?? Qa5+! (winning a bishop) and White resigned. In the 28 years since then, a number of other players have fallen into this trap. ChessBase's Mega Database 2013 shows 12 complete games with this line. Surprisingly, Black scored only 83.3%! He actually managed to lose the following game, letting his queen be trapped with 15...f6?? instead of saving it with 15...Qf6!

The moral of the story: "won games" don't win themselves! When you get a winning position, play accurately and finish your opponent off. By the same token, if you have a losing position, don't give up. Keep the position complicated and set your opponent as many problems as possible. My Wikipedia article on swindles has some inspiring examples of saves from seemingly hopeless positions.

The greatest swindle ever

You may have heard Evans-Reshevsky, U.S. Championship 1963-64 called "The Swindle of the Century". It's a nice one, to be sure, but Marshall-Marco, Monte Carlo 1904 is better. (Bizarrely, that game does not appear in Marshall's mistitled 1914 book Marshall's Chess "Swindles".) Keres-Fischer, Curacao 1962 is also an amazing save, but I wouldn't call it a "swindle" since Fischer (somehow) had no way to win after 72.Qe5!!

By the way, who christened Evans-Reshevsky "The Swindle of the Century"? Why, that would be Larry Evans himself, annotating the game in American Chess Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Winter 1964), of which he was the editor-in-chief.

But the real Swindle of the (20th) Century, indeed the greatest swindle ever to date, is the amazing one that Larry Christiansen pulled off against Alexander Beliavsky at Reggio Emilia 1987-88. From a busted position, Christiansen sacrificed a knight to expose Beliavsky's king, then offered four pseudo-queen sacrifices in an attempt to get a perpetual check. Beliavsky thwarted Christiansen's attempts and repeatedly hammered Christiansen's king. Finally, on the brink of victory, Beliavsky fell for Christiansen's last trick.

After 29.Bc4, Christiansen had a lost position against the No. 5 player in the world. His f-pawn is under attack, but passive defense is hopeless, e.g. 29...Nh6 30.Qb6 winning the c-pawn (30...Qd7 31.Nxf7!). So Christiansen ignored White's threats and dove in with 29...Nxf2!? 30.Kxf2 Ra3! After 31.Bxf7+ Kg7 32.Qe6, he went after White's king with 32...Ra2+. Robert Byrne observed in The New York Times that after 33.Qxa2 Rxa2+ 34.Bxa2 Ng4+ 35.Kg1 Qa7 36.Bb1 Qa3 37.Bd3 Qb2 38.Rc2 Qd4+, "White will experience difficult technical problems." Instead, the game continued 33.Kg1 R8a3!, hoping for 34.Qxe7? Rxg3+ and the rook gives perpetual check along the third rank. Nor was 34.Kh1 Rxg3! 35.Qxa2 Ng4! appealing for White. Beliavsky preferred 34.Ne8+! Now 34...Nxe8? 35.Qxg6+ mates next move, and there is no perpetual check after 34...Qxe8? 35.Bxe8 Rxg3+ 36.Kh1. Undeterred, Christiansen played 34...Kh6! 35.Nxf6 35.Qxe7 Rxg3+ or 35.Qxf6 Qxf6 still leads to perpetual check. 35...Rxg3+ 36.Kh1 Qxf7! Offering the queen a third time, again hoping for perpetual check after 37.Qxf7? Rh3+ or 37.Ng8+? Qxg8! 37.Rd7! White offers his own queen sacrifice: if 36...Qxe6, 37.Rh7#! Another clear win was 37.Ng4+! hxg4 (37...Kg7 38.Qxe5+ is even worse) 38.Qxf7 Rh3+ 39.Kg1 Rg3+ 40.Kf1! Rf3+ 41.Qxf3, leaving White a rook up. 37...Qxf6! Black's last gasp, offering the queen yet a fourth time. 38.Qxf6?? White thinks that he can finally take the queen safely, since now there is no perpetual. White wins after 38.Rh7+! Kxh7 39.Qxf6 Rh3+ 40.Kg1 Rg3+ 41.Kf1 Rh3 41.Qe7+ Kh6 (41...Kg8? 42.Qe8+ Kh7 43.Qd7+ wins the rook) 42.Qg5+ Kh7 43.Kg1 Raa3 44.Kg2. He was rudely awakened by Christiansen's 38...Rh2+! A finish reminiscent of Evans-Reshevsky: Christiansen sacs his remaining heavy pieces and goes for stalemate. The players agreed to a draw in light of 39.Kxh2 Rg2+! 40.Kh3 Rg3+! 41.Kh2 Rg2+! 42.Kh1 Rg1+!, when Black draws by perpetual check or stalemate.

For another amazing Christiansen swindle, see Burden-Christiansen, Las Vegas 1992, wherein Christiansen spots a master a queen for a knight, and wins!