Disrespecting the game at the Dutch Championships?
We start with this position:
White has just blown an ending that was dead drawn about 55 moves ago and merely routinely drawn for the past 50 moves, and is now squarely facing a loss. Disgusted (who wouldn't be?), White uncorks 104.Rb6:
In my pre-internet chess career, I had never, or at almost never encountered such tricks. Once I started playing on chess servers in the mid-90s, however, I ran across them all the time, and found myself infuriated by them. It wasn't primarily a matter of anger that they occasionally succeeded against me (though that didn't help); in fact, I was quickly able to sense which opponents would attempt that garbage and, after the initial shock, I was very successful in avoiding their tricks and even benefiting from them.
Instead, my anger was that such a strategy seemed to me utterly disrespectful: of the opponent, of the game, of fair play. This wasn't sportsmanship; it was gamesmanship, the sort of dirty trick one would expect from a street hustler whose concern is his daily bread, not the love of the game. Their action struck me as despicable, and I couldn't add them to my censor/noplay list quickly enough. (Even when I won.)
Those of you who play on the internet are no doubt familiar with such individuals. Some people go for these tricks even when it's not a last-gasp attempt to save the game. Indeed, they are like comic book characters to me: there's the 1.c3 2.Qc2 3.Qxh7 player, the meet ...g6 with Bh6 (hoping for ...Bg7 Bxg7) guy (or gal), the 1.d4, 2.Bg5 and (he hopes) 3.Bxd8 guy, and so on.
10 years on, the shock has worn off, I've experienced far worse breaches of etiquette, and while I still immediately consign such individuals to the noplay zone, the heavy-duty righteous indignation has largely worn away. People (myself included, obviously and unfortunately) sometimes behave in ways that are foolish (and worse), and unless someone is being harmed, it's better just to slough it off.
That said, I still find such actions a blight on the game; a peccadillo in the throwaway realm of 1-minute chess, perhaps, but a sign that one values winning over the other goods at stake in a slower chess game.
I must qualify this, however: emotions come into play, too! While I feel nothing but contempt for this technique as a general strategy, there are circumstances where I can understand, if not necessarily condone, its use. For example: there are some people who would play bishop and pawn vs. bishop and pawn, where the bishops are of opposite-colors, the pawns are blocked and covered by their bishops (and let's say the kings as well, which can't be checked) for all 50 moves - longer, if we adjust the example to allow it - even against their dying mothers in the hopes of winning on time. Against such people, the cheapo attack makes sense as a sort of "vigilante" approach, as a loss in such cases is just exasperating!
Okay, rant over; back to the game. As you've no doubt gathered from the post's title, we're not talking about a random blitz game, but a full-length tournament battle from the just-completed Dutch Championships (won by Tiviakov; website here). IM Yge Visser had White, GM Jan Smeets had Black, and both were running out of time, since (as far as I've been able to discern from the tournament website) they were playing at this point without any increments. Visser had let the draw slip away, as I mentioned above, so he played his last chance. And it worked! Smeets played 104...Kh5??, Visser grabbed the rook, won the pawns and gave mate before his flag fell.
You can replay the game here to get a sense of its evolution. Do you think Smeets was out of line for playing out a drawn ending for so long? Was Visser just mad at himself for blowing a routine draw? Am I all wet?
White has just blown an ending that was dead drawn about 55 moves ago and merely routinely drawn for the past 50 moves, and is now squarely facing a loss. Disgusted (who wouldn't be?), White uncorks 104.Rb6:
In my pre-internet chess career, I had never, or at almost never encountered such tricks. Once I started playing on chess servers in the mid-90s, however, I ran across them all the time, and found myself infuriated by them. It wasn't primarily a matter of anger that they occasionally succeeded against me (though that didn't help); in fact, I was quickly able to sense which opponents would attempt that garbage and, after the initial shock, I was very successful in avoiding their tricks and even benefiting from them.
Instead, my anger was that such a strategy seemed to me utterly disrespectful: of the opponent, of the game, of fair play. This wasn't sportsmanship; it was gamesmanship, the sort of dirty trick one would expect from a street hustler whose concern is his daily bread, not the love of the game. Their action struck me as despicable, and I couldn't add them to my censor/noplay list quickly enough. (Even when I won.)
Those of you who play on the internet are no doubt familiar with such individuals. Some people go for these tricks even when it's not a last-gasp attempt to save the game. Indeed, they are like comic book characters to me: there's the 1.c3 2.Qc2 3.Qxh7 player, the meet ...g6 with Bh6 (hoping for ...Bg7 Bxg7) guy (or gal), the 1.d4, 2.Bg5 and (he hopes) 3.Bxd8 guy, and so on.
10 years on, the shock has worn off, I've experienced far worse breaches of etiquette, and while I still immediately consign such individuals to the noplay zone, the heavy-duty righteous indignation has largely worn away. People (myself included, obviously and unfortunately) sometimes behave in ways that are foolish (and worse), and unless someone is being harmed, it's better just to slough it off.
That said, I still find such actions a blight on the game; a peccadillo in the throwaway realm of 1-minute chess, perhaps, but a sign that one values winning over the other goods at stake in a slower chess game.
I must qualify this, however: emotions come into play, too! While I feel nothing but contempt for this technique as a general strategy, there are circumstances where I can understand, if not necessarily condone, its use. For example: there are some people who would play bishop and pawn vs. bishop and pawn, where the bishops are of opposite-colors, the pawns are blocked and covered by their bishops (and let's say the kings as well, which can't be checked) for all 50 moves - longer, if we adjust the example to allow it - even against their dying mothers in the hopes of winning on time. Against such people, the cheapo attack makes sense as a sort of "vigilante" approach, as a loss in such cases is just exasperating!
Okay, rant over; back to the game. As you've no doubt gathered from the post's title, we're not talking about a random blitz game, but a full-length tournament battle from the just-completed Dutch Championships (won by Tiviakov; website here). IM Yge Visser had White, GM Jan Smeets had Black, and both were running out of time, since (as far as I've been able to discern from the tournament website) they were playing at this point without any increments. Visser had let the draw slip away, as I mentioned above, so he played his last chance. And it worked! Smeets played 104...Kh5??, Visser grabbed the rook, won the pawns and gave mate before his flag fell.
You can replay the game here to get a sense of its evolution. Do you think Smeets was out of line for playing out a drawn ending for so long? Was Visser just mad at himself for blowing a routine draw? Am I all wet?
Posted by Dennis Monokroussos on
Thursday June 29, 2006 at 11:55pm
I think it's a dirty, very low level trick, something worthy if you are a magician, not when you are supposed to behave loke a professional chess-player.
Dennis, the type of high risk manuever that Visser pulled off is extremely difficult to execute. You should praise it for what it is, a true thing of beauty. I salute Visser for one the greatest swindles of all time.
For your readers enjoyment, here are some other memorable swindles I have witnessed:
1) White is down a rook but Black is low on time (6 or 7 moves to make ina few seconds on an analog clock), and White still has a queen left. White hovers his queen over a checking square on the back rank, and Black is poised to play his King out of check. Similar to Visser, White switches checking squares at the last instant, Black plays Kh7, whereby White follows with Queen takes Queen. Brilliant!
2) White is hopelessly lost, in check and facing a forced mate on the next move. On an analog clock, Black's flag is still up, but truly by a thread. White waits and waits and waits, about 15 minutes in all. His breaks include walking in and out of the room, talking with the tournament director and spectators. Finally, White comes back to the table and waits some more. As his own flag is about to fall, White makes his move. Black instantly plays the checkmating move while Black's flag falls. But wait, White did not play the forced move. White played an illegal move instead, so it's not mate after all. Brilliant!
3) I myself was won a game once after being checkmated. My opponent played a Knight move, which was checkmate. I played a king move (where I was still in check of course), to which my opponent responded by taking a loose rook, but releasing the mate. My opponent was still winning at that point of course (a whole rook up), but recognizing the checkmate would have been better! I made a nice comeback after this and went on to win the game.
1. I agree. It's cheap and it's nasty. It's like those games where you outplay someone prettily and instead of resigning they 'sac' their queen on g2 - just to make the game ugly - and resign when you capture it.
2. 1. d4 2.Bg5 is a perfectly fine opening - even against best play.
I mostly play more casual/unrated games at my local club, and it's in these games that I am more surprised by such things. I obviously like winning games, but this is because winning in some way reflects my chess ability, not because I like to see a 1 beside my name.
1. Dead drawn endgame. I give my opponent the benefit of the doubt; if I could easily draw given his/her position and remaining time situation I should expect that my opponent could do the same and easily draw the game.
2. Drawn endgame. If it's not so clear that I could easily defend in my opponent's position (given his/her time remaining) I request that they show me how to do so. If the game is drawn but neither of us sees why, what's the shame in admitting this? NM Cole has beaten me several times in drawn rook endgames with level material (5-minute chess) but it is the defender's task to prove the draw.
3. Cheap shot. Is there something I'm missing here? The attacker presses a winning attack and the defender plays the "best" move (even objectively, the move that gives the strongest result of the match). Over the board I try to play the highest-quality game of chess I can; only once I am dead lost do I revert to finding cheap shots.
On a side note, years ago I had one humorous incident with a symmetrical drawn K+R+5P endgame -- I (with 1:30 to my opponent's 2:30) offered the draw; my opponent declined and lost on time. One spectator asked the gentleman, "What are you thinking trying to beat a kid on time?" Moral of the story: offer draws to younger players in dead drawn endgames, even if you're up on time. :-)
First, I don't wish to advocate anger as a response to these low tricks. Better just to censor/noplay them and move on.
Second, (to BabsonTask) what I had in mind was 1.d4 e6 2.Bg5. I don't think the Pseudo-Tromp (1.d4 d5 2.Bg5) is particularly challenging, and I think most online players do it in the hope of seeing 2...e6??, but I don't have an ethical problem with that opening.
Otherwise, I agree with Chuckles' "two groups" distinction.