Winning a lost game

Submitted by Dozy on Sat, 03/07/2009 at 9:06am.

Only a couple of weeks after announcing my departure from the chess.com blogs, I'm back. My thanks go to Erik who solved my problems, and to the many people who offered support either in Dozy's Inferno or by PM. It was appreciated.

I thought this might be a good time to talk about some chess players who made a comeback in games or situations that were certainly lost.

In the euphoria that surrounded Bobby Fischer's great win at Reykjavik in 1972, and understanding also that he had been the strong favourite, it's easy to forget the circumstances that changed his status from overdog to underdog.

Before Reykjavik the two men had met five times, resulting in three wins to Spassky and two draws. Bobby had never beaten the man. Then when the World Championship Match started Spassky won the first game, making it four wins and two draws from six games.

Fischer must have been perplexed and, citing the TV cameras as the reason, he refused to play the second game, giving a 2-0 lead to this man who had, until now, been his nemesis. Since Spassky only needed to draw the match to retain his title, this meant that Fischer was, in effect, three points behind.

What happened after that was extraordinary. Fischer bounced back to win the third, draw the fourth, and win the fifth, levelling the match at 2½—2½. The hoodoo was broken and Fischer was on a roll.

The game that follows is that fifth game, and is one of my favourites from the match. Fischer's astonishing bishop sacrifice is logical, and easy enough to understand, but was an unexpected thunderbolt for Spassky and must have destroyed his confidence. This was the shortest game of the match.

 


One of the most famous revivals in the history of chess occurred in the 1910 World Championship Match between Emanuel Lasker and David Janowski. A QGD, the game had opened quietly enough but when Black castled queenside on his tenth move Lasker found his knight was pinned and under double attack. Euwe and Kramer described this as “one of the most famous 'won' positions in the story of chess”; Tarrasch said simply, “The white knight on d4 stands badly and this must be White's undoing.”


One of the greatest chess teachers of all time, Master Po, had this advice for playing won games: “When one eye is fixed on the destination, Grasshopper, you have only one eye to search for the way."  Translated into modern English that means, “It only takes one lapse of concentration to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.”

In this game from the 1985 USSR Championship Viktor Kuporosov had the white pieces against Leonid Yudasin. Kuporosov had a strong attack but Yudasin seemed to have all the squares covered and, with a pawn advantage, may already have been thinking about winning the endgame.

Then, like a Ninja swooping in from the darkness, Kuporosov played 26.Nc6+.

There were four ways Black could have captured that knight—and all of them lost to a discovered check.

For instance,

if 26...Nxc6 27.bxc6+ Kh8 28.c7+ Nc6 29.Qb8# or

if 26...Kh8 27.Nxe7 Qxe7 28.Rxc8 Rxc8 29.Rxc8#

 

 

» posted in Dozy's Inferno
 

Comments:

by santiR - 8 months ago
outside Washington D.C. United States
Member Since: Apr 2008
Member Points: 1018
very good, i loved the examples.
by nmplayer - 8 months ago
Santa Fe United States
Member Since: Jan 2009
Member Points: 91

Wonderful blog as always, glad to see you back!

by Dozy - 8 months ago
Blue Mountains Australia
Member Since: Aug 2007
Member Points: 2136

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you, RoyalFlush.  I've been earning my name for the past eight hours. 

But thank you Batgirl for the clarification.  It's appreciated.

by batgirl - 8 months ago
NC United States
Member Since: Jun 2007
Member Points: 4326

if 26...Nxc6 27.bxc6+

may not be possible, but 26...Nxc6 does lead to a quick win in one line:

26...Nxc6 27.bxc6 
               if 28...b6, then 29. c7#

and an eventual win in every line (or so it seems to me; what I felt might be the main line, I put in bold) -

     after 27. bxc6, capturing the pawn seems to me deady and loses waaay too much material. 
            e.g. if  27...Bxc6, then 28. Bxc6 and the Queen can't recapture without being down both a Queen and a Rook for a Bishop
                        and if 28...Qe7, then 29. c7+   (if Qxp, the black loses the Q for nothing, after having lost the Rook for a Bishop too)  
29...Ka8  30. Bxb7 BxB  31. c8=R (or Q) Rxc8  32. Rxc8 Bxc8 33. Rxc8#
                         if 28...Ka1,  then cxb7+  wins very, very quickly.

(If I screwed up the moves too badly trying to go from board to paper rather quickly, I apologize)

 

Those folks have good eyes to catch that.

 

Dozy, I really did understand your point; you write rather clearly.  I just needed a soapbox :-D  and a chance to explain some of the reasons why I feel that Fischer was usually perceived, and blasted in the media which understands nothing, in totally skewed light (can you have a skewed light? I don't know) .  

by RoyalFlush1991 - 8 months ago
Massachusetts United States
Member Since: Jul 2008
Member Points: 530

Cena is right about 27. bxc6 not being check. I'm not sure what you were referring to in your reply Dozy.

by Dozy - 8 months ago
Blue Mountains Australia
Member Since: Aug 2007
Member Points: 2136

You'll get no argument from me there, batgirl. 

With hindsight it's clear what he achieved and everybody benefits.  My point was that, at the time, his attitude was as hard to accept as was John McEnroe's on a bad day. For somebody like myself that was enough to want to see Spassky win.

by batgirl - 8 months ago
NC United States
Member Since: Jun 2007
Member Points: 4326

There has always been a lot of talk about Fischer's demands concerning both playing conditions and money.  What many people fail to take into consideration is the low esteem in which chess as a profession has traditionally been held in the US.  Long before Fischer, Lasker had made what many thought of as excessive financial demands. But, unlike the Soviets who were state supported and, say, Capablanca (and others, of course) who were also protected financially, American players, like Lasker, were mostly let to their own devises. If you remember the 1939 chess olympiad (the 8th) in Buenos Aries (during which Germany invaded Poland), you may know that the US team didn't participate even though it had won the gold in the previous 4 Olympiads (not counting the unofficial one in 1936 in which Hungary took the gold).  The reason the US didn't enter was that the players couldn't afford to take off from work and pay much their expenses (the newly founded USCF offered a very modest [$1500, instead of the expected, and needed, $2500] stipend). 
Fischer's demands (to me) weren't about the money itself, since he had turned down some very lucrative offers, but about respect, of which the money was a tangible indication.  By insisting on getting his share of the money that his playing generated and by insisting on perfect playing conditions, he helped to shift the focus from the event onto the players where it really belongs.
Although Fischer did indeed help raise the estimation of the chess profession in the US, I think his effect was more global.  I think it's been said that Spassky earned more money losing to Fischer than he had made total in his chess career up to that point.  Regardless of Fischer's influence, the US still lags way behind other countries in its appreciation of chess (even with Ben Franklin, Paul Morphy, Sammy Reshevsky, Rueben Fine and Bobby Fischer, the US has never issued a single chess stamp).

by Dozy - 8 months ago
Blue Mountains Australia
Member Since: Aug 2007
Member Points: 2136

davejitsu:  Dozy you are legend

Thanks, Dave. 

batgirl:  Spassky, for his part, took a courageous stand to ensure that this one-sided match ended properly. 

Hi bg.  I remember at the time wanting Spassky to win.  It became a contest between a gentleman and a mouth, and I wasn't comfortable with Fischer's arrogance and bad manners. 

That being said, chess would be a different game today if Spassky had won.  The demands that seemed so outrageous at the time and, of course, Fischer's victory, changed the world perception about chess.

I can only imagine what happened in the US when he won, but in Australia the number of chess clubs that sprang up was extraordinary.  Most of them have since folded (we have comparatively few tournament  players here) but for a few years the flame burned exceedingly bright. 

It's good to hear from you batgirl.  I hope you'll be able to see your way clear to start blogging again now the obstacle has been removed.

Assassin2142:  One of my games falls into this category. I should have lost but somehow i didn't.

Ain't it luverly when you find such a cooperative opponent!  It's certainly proof of Master Po's adage that we need to keep both eyes open to search for the way.

by Assassin2142 - 8 months ago
United States
Member Since: Nov 2008
Member Points: 270

One of my games falls into this category. I should have lost but somehow i didn't.

by batgirl - 8 months ago
NC United States
Member Since: Jun 2007
Member Points: 4326

I have to agree with your assessment of Fischer relative to Spassky.  Fischer, with no concrete reason (i.e. based on their previous games together) to believe he could take on Spassky, not only played and beat him convincingly, but played under such a severe disadvantage. Other than Harrwitz-Lowenthal, I can't think of a greater upset.  Spassky, for his part, took a courageous stand to ensure that this one-sided match ended properly.

As always, I've greatly enjoyed this posting and your choice of demonstrative games.

Sarah

by davejitsu - 8 months ago
Wading River United States
Member Since: Aug 2008
Member Points: 453

Dozy you are legend

by Dozy - 8 months ago
Blue Mountains Australia
Member Since: Aug 2007
Member Points: 2136

RoyalFlush1991:  A much-appreciated comeback from a blogging legend Smile . Glad to have you back Dozy!

Thanks RF, nice of you to say so.  I always wanted to be a legend. 

cgs: I'm very glad of your returning to writing of chess articles. And immediately you brought excellent examples.

Thanks to you, too Csaba.  I had hoped not to be away too long but the previous situation was a bit frustrating. 

I also have Gligoric's book on the match and it's excellent.  CJS Purdy wrote one too which was published within a week of the match being finished.  It was equally good.  I bought a copy but have misplaced it.

cena-warrior:  can i ask a question?? if 26...Nxc6, how is 27. bxc6 a check??

When the pawn moves forward the check is discovered by the bishop.  Discovered checks are always deadly.  (Reuben Fine called them the dive bombers of the chessboard.)

by cena_warrior - 8 months ago
Medan Indonesia
Member Since: Feb 2009
Member Points: 733

can i ask a question?? if 26...Nxc6, how is 27. bxc6 a check??

by cgs - 8 months ago
Veszprém Hungary
Member Since: Feb 2008
Member Points: 646

I'm very glad of your returning to writing of chess articles. And immediately you brought excellent examples. In the Fischer game is very interesting and coriously enough that the black queen directed the attack from his cave (g7, g5 and h6 pawns). In the Nimzo Indian always fight the white bishop pair against black knight and bishop. In the closed position the last is better. And this ensured to black the move of Nimzowitsch 7... d6!? According to Gligoric the 27. Qc2?? was the greatest miss of Spassky in his career. In the last example the queen's sacrifice is very nice. Thank you for the post. 

by RoyalFlush1991 - 8 months ago
Massachusetts United States
Member Since: Jul 2008
Member Points: 530

A much-appreciated comeback from a blogging legend Smile. Glad to have you back Dozy!

 

Add your comment:

Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.