Help Crafting Fictional Chess Match

To whomever it may concern; to whomever has the capacity/inclination:

I’m a writer with a chess skillset that’s modest at best. I’m looking for help crafting a fictional game to fit the following parameters.

I’m currently working on a scene setting two characters against each other, intellectually. In this vignette, I had a character describe the other as seeing him/her as a chess-piece (the specific simile is actually quite nice – though I’ll refrain from sharing for a variety of reasons)… consequently, I considered using a game of chess as back-drop of the dialogue between the two… to heighten the significance of the aforementioned simile and to play on some of the differentials between the characters… and portending future conflicts between them.

Initially I considered crafting the ‘game’ myself, but I feel too unintelligent and under-skilled to develop something that comes close to reality… So, if you can, have at it!

Character “A” is both exceedingly intelligent and exceedingly deceptive. Probably a player of expert-to-master level at the very least. “A” wants to toy with “B” and ultimately exact both a victory in-game and in their discourse. “A” is playing white.

Character “B” is intelligent – but not as much as “A”. Probably a player with well below expert level ability/experience. I intend to have character B to recognize this obvious disparity and (in dialogue) play into “A’s” superiority.

As for the game itself, I’m looking for three things:

Part 1 – the Opening – I’m looking for “B” to go on the offensive early (as “B” is an aggressive-type character) but primarily as a feint, disguising “B’s” true defensive intentions. “A” should be able to deflect this assault easily, almost laughably.

Part 2 – the Midgame – “A” begins to dominate the board, winning pieces left and right and taking few losses. “B” appears to lose control as checkmate seems imminent.

Part 3 – the Endgame – “A” remains on the offensive, but “B’s” early stratagems pay off. “B” forces a stalemate. (“A” is obviously displeased with the outcome).

*** If there’s any conceivable way “A” could allow “B” to queen a pawn during the process – particularly towards the endgame, that would be ideal.

I’m not looking for exact game notation (though that wouldn’t hurt). I don’t plan on feeding the reader a steady diet of each move and counter (it wouldn’t make sense within the flow of the dialogue). I’m just looking for something that fits the above parameters, with a few of the key moves at each stage expressed plainly and directly.

I understand this is a ton to ask – but would appreciate any help.

Thanks in-advance. Apologies in-advance. 

i did a game.Unfortuanely i forgot about the stalemate part but you could change the moves a bit

I'm never going to believe a character is intelligent just because they play chess. I used to think that, but not anymore. In fact, a truly intelligent person would probably not be a chess player, so I would just skip that idea if I were a writer. It's just a cliche with no merit, in my view:)

The intelligence of the characters is well-established prior to the "game" sequence. The game itself is merely a backdrop for some tete-a-tete dialogue and metaphor as it relates to the game. 

"A" is an established intellectual, with plenty of leisure time to devote to 'side' pursuits. "B" is an intuitive young person who sees themselves being used by "A".... I understand the 'cliche' concerns, but I'm not too worried. 

I appreciate the effort - but as a relative 'newbie' I'd need some hand-holding getting it from check to stalemate instead (and flipping the colors as Harryz reminded. 

That's good:)

Out of my own personal curiosity, what do you mean by "intuitive" person? 

Well, "intuition" is a highly subjective term (which is why I'd imagine you're asking for clarification) but in this sense, it's triply meaningful

1. "B" reads people well. Throughout my first 75k words, I've gradually developed "B" as someone who rarely 'misses' when attempting to ascertain an individual's general motives. In essence, "B" reads faces, body language and actions correctly - even if characters like "A" dissemble.

2. "B" is also lucky. As the prime protagonist in this book (and beyond) things (generally) fall into place. Intuition is partly that - in the real world, gut feelings sometimes lead us astray - but in this fictional world, part of "B's" successes stem from his/her gut.

3. This is a high-fantasy universe. "B" is a character with untapped physical/mental abilities - and while not capable of precognition, certainly "A" has "B's" 'spidey sense tingling' ... even though "A" isn't evil, he/she is not pure of intent. 

Hope this evinces what I was going for. Sorry for the length!

Thank you, DoctorOrpheus! That was clearly expressed:)

DoctorOrpheus, it sounds as if the type of game you want is a "morality play."  Consequently, if I were you, I would look at some very old games, dating back into the 1800s, or earlier.

But, you might want to look up the famous swindle by Larry Evans from Samuel Reshevsky in a US Championship.  As I recall, Evans saved a stalemate in a lost position.  Reshevsky thought Evans was offering his hand to resign, as Evans made the killer move.

I will have to find it.

EDIT:  Here it is.  I'm not sure yet how to load the game on the site http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1252040-

<bows curteously>

**** 

Still looking for help adjusting "LightningBoltofZeus's" game to my needs (turning the early attacker (Character B) to the Black pieces, achieving a stalemate etc....

I'd also like to hear from anyone with better knowledge of the game than myself if LBoZ's game-plan meets my criterea... (I just cant tell, even from several play-throughs)

1. Is the opening enough of a gambit (and foolhardy-enough in appearance) to warrant the disdain and derision from the "superior" "Character A" (white in a reformed version)

2. Is the counter-attack devestating enough (as a superior player would expect to level)

3. Is the potential stalemate not just a 'happy accident' but a planned, pre-concieved trap of a sort?

- Also, any help in determining the most 'pivotal' moves (so I can definitively include these in the description) would be much appreciated

Cheers again!

Sounds very interesting - but, again I want the stalemate to be intentional. "B" knows that in a straightforward game he/she cannot win - and though this may be immoral in the world of chess, "B's" opening gambit is to lull "A" into that sense of superiority before finding the 'stalemate' sprung around them. 

Again, much obliged for the response.

Very interesting game. But the "blunder" part is less what I'm going for... I don't want an obvious mistake by "A" to gift a 1/2 to "B"... I want "B's" early gambit to fail (arguably intentionally... perhaps not... the character is very 'dynamic' and prone to aggressive behavior)... but I want "B's" recovery/endgame plan to be all about seducing a draw from "A".

Of course, my lack of talent for and high-level appreciation of chess could be clouding my assessment. But so far, it's not quite what I'm looking for... though, again, the effort is greatly appreciated.

White: Alfred Eichorn

Black: Simon Mertlitsch

This game could be your start.  You fill in the stalemate.

I think the original premise is flawed.

Player A is by far the better player, but the inferior player B (with Black!) lures/forces A into a position he envisages many moves before which ends in a stalemate? No matter which of many possible approaches/openings/strategies/sacrifices A might decide upon anywhere during the game?

And without A making a blunder?

I wouldnt believe that if I read your book.

You make a good point. I'm obviously here for chess-related advice (lacking knowledge beyond the basics). When you put it in these terms, it seems far less reasonable. But two conceits I'm using to get around (some) of the issues

1. Player A is overconfident. They see B as absolutely inferior (not just moderately inferior). 

2. Player B is aware of Player A's assesment of his/her ability (therefore able to set up A).

Obviously, that doesn't solve the overall problem (that A would win and B would not have the omniscience to percieve the 'perfect setup for a stalemate'. 

Maybe my 'NO BLUNDERS' call is overstating it. I forsaw 'blunders' of a sort - but ones of that overconfidence (and not just abject mistakes, obvious slips). B is anticipating the onslaught follwing his/her failed opening gambit. When A assumes the game is all but won, A overplays his/her hand with errors that a 'lesser-lesser' opponent wouldn't sieze upon but B would, allowing an eventual forced stalemate.

The reason I'm so set on stalemate is becasue I do envison A's simple superioroity to B, making outright victory highly unlikely - and B knows it. Forcing a stalemate, on B's end, where the flow of play is more controllable seemed more feasable. Perhaps that's foolishness or ignorance on my part, but that's why I arrived where I did. 

In any case the criticism is valid (and appreciated). I welcome any criticisms/suggestions.

The best you can do, IMO, is to have player A fall for some obscure opening trap, that B might be familiar with. Your game won't be long, so stalemate would be unlikely, but maybe there could be a repetition of moves. If the game goes beyond 20 moves the expert/master would (almost?) certainly win.

However...... I have this:

Say player B is White, not Black (is this important)

Because A is expert/master level, B has access to previous games played by A

B knows A plays Alekhine's Defense against 1e4

Black aggressively tries a cheap trick, which an oveconfident A falls for:

Perhaps you're correct in your assessment. I appreciate your efforts to both enlighten me (and show me an alternative to my setup).

However, if I went that way, I might need to re-think the overall layout of the dialogue, and that being my priority, I'm really trying to 'weasel' my way to the scenario I described at the beginning.

The vignette plays out as follows (very, very cursory overview)

A has information that he thinks B knows (but in actuality, doesnt) but, due to enjoying his superiority complex, wants to draw it from B cleverly, decietfully, in order to pad his own ego (and to confirm its veracity).

B intuitively recognizes A's attempt to suss-out the information, but (being unaware) wants to know it just as much... to that end B plays up the intellectual inferiority angle. Throughout the early dialogue, A asks B if B plays chess at all, B admits to some. A volunteers a friendly game.

B continues to 'play dumb' against the backdrop of the chess engagement. Unable to get validation (or verification) A grows frustrated. B's initial gambit fails, A begins to take over the board - overconfidently and ruthlessly. 

B begins to deduce A's insinuation. A, still frustrated, oversteps the attack. B's defense is strong. A regroups. B's defense adapts. Eventually, Stalemate with A consternated by B's dialogue denials and his own impotence on the board. 

B comes away with pivotal info. 

It's deeper than all that but I'd rather not delve into specifics, especially at this point. Like I said in my opener - the idea for a chessmatch to be the backdrop propped up organically after a chess-related metaphor fit some of the middle dialogue perfectly. It's not absolutely essential, but given the animosity between B and A I thought it would be a hoot to develop the game and the discourse side-by side.

The aspects of the chess game I had in mind made literary sense, but I wanted a realistic scenario which is why I'm plodding away here, looking stupid :P

In any case, it's late-late-late here and I'm off for the night. I'll be back on the morrow to discuss any further suggestions/comments/criticisms. 

Thanks to all who replied thus far (and to those who may yet reply in my slumber). I do greatly appreciate your aid - even if it isn't setting up success (yet). 

Cheers again,

RAMDB

I agree with rooperi that Alekhine's Defense is a good choice for a psychological scene.  However, I would have player B as Black play Alekhine's Defense:

The significance of this line is that old chess computers used to play 4...Ke6 to save the knight because they didn't value king safety.

What is the year in the setting of your story?