An Undeserved Win

Well, this happens every now and then, but this win really caught me by surprise. I'd botched the job at move 25 and I was sure the game was over. Honestly, it should have been. I was playing only because I like to play chess and I wanted to see HOW he would win. Well, here's what happened...

Personally, I felt like a fraud. While it was kind of cool to "snatch victory from the jaws of defeat," I still felt bad. To that player, good game.

You shouldn't feel bad for winning, really. If your opponent can't win a 'won' game, that's his problem; he played badly and got what he deserved.

I don't understand that bishop move on 37. Was he low on time? Even if he didn't see the threats, the knight on e4 is standing on a weak square. He has two attackers and you have only a single defender. I could see if it was a complex tactic, but it's just simply a hanging piece. Maybe he was trying to secure his bishop and didn't realize he was recapturing with check?

Seems more well-earned than fraudulent. Good job. Mate ends the game.

In this variation as Black, he should castle early, then attack.  I played this recently.

Draeklae-

You're right, I just feel strange having won a game I was sure I was going to lose.

ShinobiAC-

I have no idea why he played 37...Bf2. He wasn't low on time for sure; it was a thirty minute game and we were only to about ten minutes each! I was positive he would capture that exact knight on e4 with his knight, I would recapture, he would again recapture with his queen, putting me in check AND up a piece, but then he made the ridiculous attack on my rook and I couldn't believe my eyes. Down by pieces and position and I have forced mate in 4.

iFeather-

Thank you. Mate did indeed end the game decisively, but I doubt either of us saw it coming.

Billwall-

Very nice. Fortunately for me, my opponent was not so clever.

In your game, though, wouldn't 11. Bc4 have saved the bishop for him? Even if you continued to press the bishop by setting up a queenside pawn storm with 11...a5, you opponent would have been able to counter with 12. a4 and save his bishop and possibly the game.

Just wondering.

Thanks for the feedback.

-Leo

Don't they say that the winner is the one who makes the second-to-last mistake ?

Hey y LeotheLion40, nothing fraudulent about your win.  You made one big mistake, but your opponent didn't bring his rook over to the open file to be a third piece on the attack against your king and didn't really do anything after the first couple of moves after your blunder.

There has to be more than this than one blunder and the game is lost-- OK, often that can be exactly all there is.  I mean if there is a plan to our moves and we're thinking about all the things we have to think about, then one mistake isn't going to often eliminate everything we work for.  Think of it as an "odds" game that came about in an odd sort of way.

Paulgottlieb-

Thanks for the coaching. And yes, the game took an abrupt turn at move 37.

Phssthpok-

Yes, that's very true. It seems to have proven itself in that game.

Musicalhair-

Nice username!! Anyway, thanks for the comments. I was surprised when he didn't take fuller advantage of my blunder. And actually, that rook of his didn't move the WHOLE game! Kinda crazy.

-Leo

I once came back from a lost position the exchange and two pawns behind, surprisingly, my two knights destroyed his queen and two rooks.

Sambirder-

Wow! Nothing so miraculous has happened to me... yet!

Yep... I say well done.  Never resign, and you will never wonder what might have been.  I've won similar games, and lost similar games - it's part of chess.  Props, man!

Thanks, dgmisal! That's why I keep playing chess. At my level, things can go one way or the other.

-Leo

I agree with the others, you can kind of look at in this way. You played poorly at the start and then you played good in the end, while your opponent did it vice versa. If anything I see that you winning a losing game was great playing. You took advantage of his poor and careless attack with nice moves. And it wasn't like the usual he forgot to protect the back-file checkmate or he wasn't paying attention to the king's pawns (when castled). You had to do a series of pretty nice moves in order to win. Your opponent was pretty much asking for it by attacking pieces just for the sake of moving. 

Thejackbauer-

See, that's exactly it. I feel bad because I doubt I would have done much better - he was emboldened by my mistakes and made a blunder himself. It's a little sad that I still got off with a win, even though I had pretty much lost the game. I thought about resigning, but had plenty of time, so I went for it. A win is a win is a win, but thinking AFTER I make a mistake is not a good habit to get into, even if it did win me that game.

-Leo

The thing about chess is every player makes mistakes. If we all played without any mistakes then no one can win. Basically you learn from your own mistakes and you take advantage of your opponents mistakes. 

You're right, thejackbauer. Chess would be a very boring game without any mistakes and I don't think I'd like it as much if I played on a Master level. Thanks for all the feedback!

Windows96-

Yeah, I know what you mean and I completely agree. Thanks for sharing your feelings with us.

-Leo

AnthonyCG-

I appreciate your feedback, but at the time I played this game, I had very little knowledge of openings (I still only am a little better than I was). I'd never studied the Sicilian, so I had no idea what the "standard" procedure to respond to it was. Sorry.

-Leo