We are in the midst of the club's annual chess tournament to determine the 2012 champion. The player who earns that title is not necessarily the best player in the area, but he or she is the best player in the tournament. But like any sport, sometimes the "best" player is also the luckiest player. In this year's tournament, for instance, one game saw an illegal move made, but neither player saw that the piece was placed on the wrong square. Per the rules of chess, if neither player "sees" this move within two moves of play or ten moves of play, then the move stands and play continues. It isn't necessarily the case in this game that the outcome was determined by this illegal move, but, of course the entire course of the game would have been altered. The player who made the illegal move also happened to be the player who won the game. Thus, "luck" played a part in who won or lost that game. In another game, a draw was envitable as both players had blocked pawns and opposite colour bishops and in this case one player offered a draw and the other player continued to play because there were two pawns both protected by the bishops but on separate files. The hope had to be that his opponent would make a fatal error and a fatal error is just what happened. The player that lost, moved his bishop to the only square that would lose the game and as his hand hovered over the piece realized this would lose the game and immediately moved it to another square. The other player claimed the move was final as he believed the hand had come off the piece. The player that moved the piece acquiesced and went on to lose the game. Luck? or sophisticated cunning--who knows? And finally, so far, anyway, another game was declared a draw by another via three-move repetition. During play that was denied and it was later discoverd that in fact there was a three-move repetition. The error being found and acknowledge by the winning player. This isn't luck, but rather a display of sportsmanship. So, why did I use a quote from Fischer to discuss "luck" and "sportsmanship", because the players at our club and in our tournament are not Fischers, but perhaps some play to "break a man's ego". I don't know, but I do know I do not play to break anyone's ego, though I would be the first to admit winning and losing affects my ego and it is an ugly thing to see (if you are unfortunate to have to view it) and feel (if you happen to lose for whatever reason it can affect you for days after) and (if you happen to win--that, too, affects you but creates an arrogance and self-worth that is not justified). For Fischer and others like him, chess is their life and it provides them meaning and dignity. For others, chess is a recreation to get away from the anxieties of the world and the funny thing is, the game ends up creating anxieties all of its own making.
5 Comments
3/6/2012 08:46:11 am
Just a note about illegal moves. If the illegal move was discovered in either of the player's last 10 moves, not 2, then the position just prior to the illegal move is reinstated, unless it can not for some reason, and the touched piece has to be move to a legal square. Rule 11A in the rulebook.
Reply
3/6/2012 11:11:45 pm
Roger, thanks for the e-mail reply. I missed 16d1 and if either player was in time trouble, 5 minutes or less on their clocks, then the rule is indeed that if the player making the illegal move has made two additional moves since then, then the move stands.
Reply
3/6/2012 11:13:59 pm
Oh, and my original comment about the touched piece was in reference to the illegal move and not the Bishop example in the post.
Reply
James Long
3/7/2012 05:51:33 am
The game Pagel-Long, played in the 5th round, in almost all situations would have been drawn. However, there were two/three factors that compelled me to play on. One was time pressure, and the other had to do with one possible swindle that existed on the board. Roger had offered me two draws almost back to back, which gave me the third reason to continue playing; namely he seemed to have a sense that nothing could go wrong. I have seen it many times where a supposedly drawn game lures a player into a false sense of security, where any move will complete the task, but ends up losing. I noticed this with Roger and deduced that if I continued to play for the swindle, with the limited amount of time left, he could very well become complacent and drop the bishop onto the f4 square, which would be tantamount to defeat. I was looking for this possibility for several moves, and when Roger actually dropped the piece onto f4, I had been watching for this very mistake. I immediately called him on this and he acquiesced. This was the moment he could have argued the point, but did not. I admit, it was a bit of a swindle, but experience was the reason I did not accept the draw. I do not like to win games in this manner, but I like losing even less. When I play higher rated players and obtain an advantage, I know the rule is that this is when they become the most dangerous and complacency or "dizziness" as Kotov referred to it, cannot rear its ugly head.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Springfield Chess ClubChess quotes, news, tournament information and more Archives
December 2017
Categories
All
|