In chess, a swindle is a ruse by which a player in a losing position tricks his opponent, and thereby achieves a win or draw instead of the expected loss. This can occur in myriad different ways, but certain themes are often seen.
Stalemate
One classic way of saving a draw in a losing position is by stalemate. For example, see Gelfand-Kramnik, Evans-Reshevsky, Pilnick-Reshevsky, and Reshevsky-Geller here.
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |        | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |   | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
The American grandmaster Frank Marshall was notorious for his many "Marshall swindles," a celebrated example being Marshall-MacClure, New York 1923 (diagram at above left). Marshall concluded the game with 1.Rh6! Rxh6 2.h8(Q)+! Rxh8 3.b5! Black is two rooks ahead, yet cannot avoid stalemate unless he plays 3...Rd7 4.cxd7 (threatening 5.d8(Q)+, forcing stalemate) c5?? 5.bxc6 Kb8 6.Kxb6, when White even wins. Decades later, someone pointed out an alternative draw with 1.Rg6! fxg6 2.h8(Q)+ Rxh8 3.b5 or 1...Re8 2.Rg8 Rb8 3.b5.[1] (scroll down to No. 11)
In Tchigorin-Schlechter, Ostend 1905[2] (diagram at above right), a game between two of the strongest players of the day, an unusual combination of stalemate and zugzwang enabled the great Schlechter to rescue a desperate position. Schlechter, in extreme time trouble, played 44...Qc7+! Tchigorin, thinking Schlechter had blundered, responded 45.Qb6+?, seemingly forcing the trade of queens. Schlechter's 45...Ka8!! forced an immediate draw, since 46.Qxc7 is stalemate, and 46.Ka6 Qc8+! 47.Ka5 Qc7! (zugzwang) leaves White unable to make progress.
As the above game illustrates, being in time trouble is sometimes actually helpful to the prospective swindler, whose opponent may assume that a move is a time pressure-induced blunder rather than a trap. See also this account of a swindle by the late Czechoslovak-German GM Ludek Pachman, who deliberately wasted almost an hour on his clock in order to get into time trouble and thereby lull his opponent into being swindled.
The weak back rank
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Mating threats along the opponent's back rank often enable one to win or draw from a lost position. An example is seen in Rhine-Nagle, U.S. Masters 1997 (position at left). Black, a pawn up with White's king in a dangerous position, decides that it's time to finish White off, forgetting that even a losing position may have defensive resources. Black continued 26...Rg5 27.Rhg1 Ra2?? A powerful-looking move, threatening mate in two, but it actually loses by force. Black could have kept a winning position with (for example) 27...Qf4+ 28.g3 Qf2+ 29.Rg2 Qf7, or 28.Kg1 Rg3 29.Qd1 Raa3 (threatening Rxh3+) 30.Qf1 Qh4 (renewing the threat) 31.Kh2 g6! (31...Ra2 32.Qf5! is weaker) and now Black is winning after 32.Ra1 Qxb4; 32.Rb2 Rgd3; or 32.Rc1? Ra2! (threatening mate on h3) 33.Kh1 Raxg2! 28.d6+ Kh8 The only reasonable move. White wins after 28...Qf7 29.dxc7! Ra8 30.Rgd1! Qxb3 31.Rd8+ Kf7 32.Rxb3 or 28...Kf8 29.Rbf1! Rxg2+ 30.Rxg2 Qxf1 31.Qxa2. 29.Qxa2!! Qxa2 30.dxc7! Turning the tables: Black, despite being ahead a queen for a rook, is suddenly helpless against White's passed pawn on the seventh rank. Qc2 29...Qa8 30.Rbd1 Rf5 31.Rd8+ Rf8 32.Rgd1, and 29...Qg8 30.Rgd1 Rf5 31.Rd8 Rf8 32.Rbd1, also win for White. 30.Ra1! The threat of a back-rank mate decides the game. 30.Rbc1? Rxg2+! 31.Rxg2 Qxc1 32.Ra2! Qf4+ 33.Kg2 Qg5+ would allow Black to draw by perpetual check. h6 If 30...Qxc7, 31.Ra8+ and mate next move. The game now concluded: 31.Ra8+ Kh7 32.c8(Q) Qe4 33.Qg8+ Kg6 34.Rf8 1-0 (Analysis by Fritz 8.)
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |   | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
In DeFirmian-Shirazi, U.S. Championship 1986[3] (diagram at above left), GM DeFirmian is ahead three pawns, normally an easily winning material advantage at this level. IM Shirazi played 27...Qg6! attacking White's rook and inviting White to take another pawn. GM Robert Byrne, annotating the game in the New York Times, noted that DeFirmian could have consolidated his great material advantage with 28.Rb2! Re8 29.Bd2! (29.Be3? Rxe3! 30.fxe3 Qg3! forces White to take perpetual check with 31.Qe8+ Kh7 32.Qh5+ Kg8 33.Qe8+.).[4] Instead, he took the bait with 28.Rxb5?? Rxf2 Now Black threatens 29...Rf1#, and 29.Kg1 Bh2+! wins White's queen. White tried 29.Qa8+ Rf8 30.Rg5, but now 30...Qe4!, the "marvelous Marshall masher" (Byrne), ended the game, since 31.Qxe4 allows 31...Rfl#.
Perpetual check
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |  | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Draw by perpetual check is another oft-seen way of swindling a draw from a lost position. The position at left is from Ivanchuk-Moiseenko, Russian Team Championship, Sochi 2005.[5] Black is down two pawns against the world's sixth highest-rated player. Worse, Ivanchuk's pieces dominate the board. IM Malcolm Pein notes that after almost any sensible move, for example 30.Qc2, Black would be completely lost.[6] White would then threaten 31.Rd6 pinning the knight to the queen, and neither 30...Nf6 31.Bxf6 gxf6 32.Qxh7# nor 30...Nc5 31.Ree7 is an adequate response. 30.Qc2 would also guard against a possible ...Qd1+, the significance of which becomes apparent after seeing the game continuation.
Ivanchuk played 30.Rb7??, which Moiseenko met with 30...Nf8!! This not only threatens 31...Nxe6, but also enables Black to meet 31.Rxb8 with 31...Qd1+ 32.Kh2 Qh5+ 33.Kg1 Qd1+, drawing by perpetual check. The perpetual check is based on White's weak back rank combined with his slightly compromised king position (no h-pawn). Note how pieces that are well-placed for attacking purposes may be misplaced for defensive purposes. White's rook on e6 was well placed when White had the initiative, but is of no use in stopping the threatened perpetual check. (Similarly, in Rhine-Nagle, Black's rook on g5 was an excellent attacking piece, but was poorly placed to defend Black's black rank or stop White's passed c-pawn.)
White tried 31.Rh6, but could not avoid the perpetual: 31...Rxb7 32.Qxb7 Qd1+ 33.Kh2 Rh5+ 34.Rxh5 34.Kg3!? (hoping for 34...Rxh6?? 35.Qxg7#) is met by 34...Rg5+! and White must repeat moves with 35.Kh2! Rh5+, since 35.Kh3?? Qh1#; 35.Kh4?? Qg4#; and 35.Kf4 Qg4# all get mated. 34...Qxh5+ 35.Kg3 Qg5+ 36.Kf3 Qf5+ 1/2-1/2 since White cannot escape the perpetual check.
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Sometimes perpetual check can even save the draw in a very simplified ending. In Keres-Eliskases, Noordwijk 1938 [7] (diagram at left), Black seems to be in desperate straits: he can win either of Black's pawns, but then the other will queen, leaving White with a theoretical win in the queen versus rook ending. However, the players agreed to a draw after 56...Rb6+! 57. Kc1 Rh6! Because of continuous checks and mate threats from Black's rook, White will never have time to queen either pawn. For instance, 58.Kd1 Kd3 59.Ke1 Ke3 60.Kf1 Kf3 61.Kg1 Rg6+! 62.Kh2 Rh6+! 63.Kg1 Rg6+ 64.Kf1 Rh6! 65.Ke1 Ke3 66.Kd1 Kd3 67.Kc1 Kc3 68.Kb1 and now Black even has his choice of draws: (a) 68...Rb6+ 69.Ka2 Ra6+! or (b) 68...Rh1+ 69.Ka2 Rh2+ 70.Ka3 Rh1! 71.Ka4 Kc4 72.Ka5 Kc5 73.Ka4 (forced) Kc4 etc.
The surprise mating attack
A surprise mating attack is another way to swindle a win or draw from a lost position.
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |  | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
In Karpov-Csom, Bad Lauterberg 1977[8] (see diagram at left), GM Csom (Black) has thoroughly outplayed his opponent, then the reigning World Champion, and is a knight and pawn ahead with a completely winning position. Karpov's last move, 49.Rd7 (from d1), looks to be a last gasp before resigning. Csom played the solid-looking 49...Nf8??, saving the attacked knight and attacking White's rook. But after Karpov's 50.Nf5!! (diagram at right), Csom resigned. The threat is 51.Rh7+! Nxh7 52.Qg7#, and Black has no effective way to stop it. If 50...Nxd7 or 50...gxf5, White mates with 51.Qh2+ Kg8 (51...Nh4 52.Qxh4+ does not help) 52.Qg3+ followed by Qg7#.
Instead, Csom could have won easily with 49...Ng5! Now 50.Nf5!? would be met by 50...exf5 51.Qh2+ Kg8 52.Qh6 Re1+ 53.Kh2 (53.Kf2 Qf3#) 53...Rh1+! 54.Kxh1 Nf4+ 55.Rd5 Nxd5 and wins. If instead 50.Nh5!? Rg8 51.Nxf6 (or 51.Rg7 Nh4) Nh4! threatening 52...Qg2# (note that White cannot force mate with 52.Rh7+, since 52...Nxh7 gives discovered check by the rook).
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
The late British grandmaster Tony Miles was an accomplished swindler. His game against the Tunisian IM Slim Bouaziz from the 1979 Riga Interzonal[9] (see diagram at above left), is a fine example of using a surprise mating attack to swindle a win from a lost position. The game shows a subtle psychological build-up to a swindle by the swindler, and deadly overconfidence (or perhaps zeitnot) by the "swindlee." Bouaziz has completely outplayed Miles, and is on the verge of a major upset. Bouaziz is up a rook for a bishop and has a simple plan: queening his c-pawn. White's king is a little drafty, but seems to be well-defended by White's queen and pawns clustered around it. The game continued 40...Rh1 Shuffling about aimlessly with his rook, or so it seems. Now 41.Rxh5! really would have left Black with a hopeless position, but White didn't see the need. 41.c6 h4! Of course, the pawn is immune (42.Qh4?? Qg1#). White sees that he now has to worry about the possibility of 42...Rxh3!? 43.Kxh3 Qh1+ 44.Qh2 Qxf3+, but finds a simple way to parry it. 42.Rcd2! Now White can meet 42...Rxh3? with 43.Rd1! Rg3+ 44.Qxg3 and wins. 42...Rcl 43.Rc2 Qb1! Now 44.Rxc1 Qxc1 would leave White hard-pressed to both save his c-pawn and protect his king against a possible perpetual check. 44.Rdd2! Rh1! (see diagram at above right) The rook returns to h1; White, his pawn on the verge of promotion, sees nothing to fear. 45.c7?? 45.g5!, giving White's king a flight square, would still have won easily. 45...Rxh3!! White suddenly is in deep trouble, with Black threatening 46...Qh1#. Had White appreciated the danger, he could still have drawn with 46.Qf1! Rg3+ 47.Kf2 Rxf3+ 48.Kxf3 Qxf1+ 49.Ke4 Qe1+ and with White's pawn so far advanced, Black must be content with a draw by perpetual check (analysis by Crafty chess engine). Not realizing the seriousness of his predicament, White played 46.Kxh3?? Qh1+ 47.Qh2 Qxf3+ 48.Kh4 Be7+ 49.g5 49.Kh5 g6+ 50.Kh6 Qe3+ forces mate. 49...Bxg5+! 0-1 Too late, Bouaziz sees 50.Kxg5 f6+ 51.Kh4 g5#! (or 51.Kg6 Qg4#!).
Material insufficiency
Sometimes the player who is behind in material may achieve a draw by exchanging off, or sacrificing for, all of the opponent's pawns, leaving a position (for example, two knights versus lone king) where the superior side still has a large material advantage but cannot force checkmate. The inferior side is also sometimes able to achieve an ending that is theoretically still lost, but where the win is difficult and may be beyond the opponent's capabilities (for example, bishop and knight versus lone king; queen versus rook; two knights versus pawn, which is sometimes a win for the knights; or two bishops versus knight[10][11]).
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
The diagram at left shows a simple example of forcing a draw by material insufficiency. Black, although two pawns down, draws easily with 1...Bxa3![12] Then 2.bxa3 is a standard book draw, since White's bishop is of the "wrong color" from the rook pawn (i.e., it moves on the squares opposite in color to that of the pawn's queening square) and thus can never drive Black's king from the a8 corner. 2.b3 (avoiding 2...Bxb2!) is best, but gives no realistic winning chances.
Schmidt-Schaefer, Rheinhessen 1997 (diagram at right), is another straightforward example. Black has connected passed pawns, but White can reach the drawn two knights versus lone king ending by sacrificing his knights for the pawns. Thus, 50.Nfe4! threatened to capture both pawns with the knights. 50...dxe4 51.Nxe4 Kd5 52.Nxc5! would also achieve that goal. Black tried 50...d4, but agreed to a draw after 51.Nxc5+ Kd6 52.Nb5+! Kxc5 53.Nxd4! (Analysis from ChessBase 9, Mega 2004 database.)
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
The position at left, the conclusion of a chess problem by the American master Frederick Rhine, provides a more complicated example. White draws with 5.Nxc4+! Nxc4 If 5...Kc6 6.Nxb6 Kxb6 7.Rxb2+, White's rook draws easily against Black's knight and bishop. 6.Rxb6+ Now Black's best try is 6...Kd5! or 6...Ke7!, when the endgame of rook against two knights and a bishop is a theoretical draw, as in Karpov-Kasparov, Tilburg 1991[13] and confirmed by the Shredder six-piece database.[14] The more natural 6...Nxb6+ leads to a surprising draw after 7.Kd8! (diagram at right), when any bishop move stalemates White, and any other move allows 8.Kxd8, when the two knights cannot force checkmate.
Building a fortress
Building a fortress is another method of saving an otherwise lost position. It is often seen in the endgame, for example in endings with bishops of opposite colors, where the superior side is often unable to win a position with two or even three extra pawns.
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
In Arshak Petrosian-Hazai, Schilde 1970[[15] (position at left), Black has a difficult endgame, since White can attack and win his a-pawn by force, and he has no counterplay. Realizing how difficult his position is, Black tried the amazing 45...Qb6!? White responded with the obvious 46.Nxb6+?, but this was actually a critical mistake, enabling Black to establish an impenetrable fortress. White should have carried out his plan of winning Black's a-pawn with 46.Qd2! followed by Kb3, Nc3, Ka4, and Na2-c1-b3. 46...cxb6 Now Black threatens 47...h4, locking down the entire board with his pawns, so White tries to break the position open. 47.h4 gxh4 48.Qd2 If only White could play Qh1 here, followed by Qh3, he would win easily. 48...h3! 49.gxh3 Otherwise 49...h2 draws. 49...h4! Black has established his fortress, and now can draw by simply moving his king around. The only way White could attempt to break down the fortress would be to sacrifice his queen at some point with Qxa5 or Qxg3, but both would give winning chances only to Black. The players shuffled their kings, and White's queen, around for six more moves before agreeing to a draw.
Zugzwang
Zugzwang is a technique most often used by the superior side, so it is rarely available as a swindling technique. However, Tchigorin-Schlechter above is an instance where it is was used by the swindler.
An extraordinary example of using zugzwang to swindle one's way out of a dead lost, complicated endgame occurred in the position at left.[16] On the previous move Black, with an easily winning position, had played 73...d4? and White responded 74.R(from d2)-d3!!, when Black, a knight up with three dangerous passed pawns, suddenly must fight for a draw. Tim Krabbé explains that the pawns on d4 and e4 are blocked and pinned, the knight is bound to the defense of e4, the rook is bound to the defense of d4, and the pawn on b4 is bound to the defense of the knight. Krabbé analyzes as best for Black 74...b3! 75.Rxd4 Rxd4 76.Rxc3 Rd8 77.Rxb3 Re8 78.Re3 Re5 79.Rc3 (79.Kxf6? Rxa5 82.Kg6 Ra1 83.f6 Rg1+ wins) Re8 80.Re3 Re5 81.Rc3 and the game will end in a draw by repetition of moves. Instead, Black played 74...Nb5? 75.Rxe4 Nd6 76.Re6 Rc6 77.Rxd4 Rxh6+ 78.Kxh6 Nxf5+ 79.Kg6 1-0
Multiple themes
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Some swindles combine more than one of these themes. In Beliavsky-Christiansen, Reggio Emilia 1987[17], Christiansen pulls off a masterful swindle, beginning with a knight sacrifice and four offered queen sacrifices in hopes of perpetual check, and ending with a sacrifice of queen and both rooks to achieve stalemate. In the position diagrammed at left, Black's game is crumbling. White has the initiative over the whole board. He threatens Black's pawn on f7, and if Black tries to defend it with 29...Nh6, 30.Qb6 will win Black's c-pawn and the game (if 30...Qd7, 31.Nxf7!). In desperation, Christiansen counterattacked with the remarkable 29...Nxf2!? 30.Kxf2 Ra3 31.Bxf7+ Kg7 32.Qe6 Ra2+. Here, Byrne noted 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."[18] 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 Rxg3+ 39.Kf1! Rf3+ 40.Qxf3, leaving White a rook up. 37...Qxf6! Black's last gasp, offering the queen yet a fourth time. 38.Qxf6?? Shell-shocked, White thinks that he can at last 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 R2a3 44.Kg2. 38...Rh2+! 1/2-1/2 After 39.Kxh2 Rg2+! 40.Kh3 Rg3+! 41.Kh2 Rg2+! 42.Kh1 Rg1+!, Black draws by perpetual check or stalemate.
See also
External links
- Jack O'Keefe: Stalemate!