|
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. It may also refer more generally to obtaining a win or draw from a clearly losing position.〔See, e.g., Ali Mortazavi, ''The Fine Art of Swindling'', Cadogan Books, 1996, p. 44. ISBN 1-85744-105-2 (referring to (Em. Lasker–Ed. Lasker, New York 1924 ), as a "celebrated swindle").〕 I. A. Horowitz and Fred Reinfeld distinguish among "traps", "pitfalls", and "swindles". In their terminology, a "trap" refers to a situation where a player goes wrong through his own efforts. In a "pitfall", the beneficiary of the pitfall plays an active role, creating a situation where a plausible move by the opponent will turn out badly. A "swindle" is a pitfall adopted by a player who has a clearly lost game. Horowitz and Reinfeld observe that swindles, "though ignored in virtually all chess books", "play an enormously important role in over-the-board chess, and decide the fate of countless games". Although "swindling" in general usage is synonymous with cheating or fraud, in chess the term does not imply that the swindler has done anything unethical or unsportsmanlike. There is nonetheless a faint stigma attached to swindles, since players feel that one who has outplayed one's opponent for almost the entire game "is 'morally' entitled to victory" and a swindle is thus regarded as "rob() the opponent of a well-earned victory".〔Larry Evans and Burt Hochberg, in Larry Evans, Svetozar Gligorić, Vlastimil Hort, Paul Keres, Bent Larsen, Tigran Petrosian, and Lajos Portisch, ''How to Open a Chess Game'', RHM Press, 1974, p. xv. ISBN 0-89058-003-0.〕 However, the best swindles can be quite artistic, and some are widely known. There are ways that a player can maximize the chances of pulling off a swindle, including being objective, playing actively and exploiting time pressure. Although swindles can be effected in many different ways, themes such as stalemate, perpetual check, and surprise mating attacks are often seen. The ability to swindle one's way out of a lost position is a useful skill for any chess player and according to Graham Burgess "a major facet of practical chess", 〔"()very exceptional player has been skilled in holding weak positions by means of all sorts of ruses and tricks". Roswin Finkenzeller, Wilhelm Ziehr, and Emil M. Bührer, ''Chess: A Celebration of 2,000 Years'', Little, Brown and Company, 1990, p. 46. ISBN 1-55970-107-2.〕 but Frank Marshall may be the only player who has become well known as a frequent swindler.〔Grandmaster Andrew Soltis wrote that Marshall "was perhaps best known for tactical 'swindles' in lost positions." Harry Golombek (editor-in-chief), ''Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess'', Crown Publishers, 1977, p. 193. ISBN 0-19-217540-8. "()he combinations he enjoyed most were not the aftermath of solidly played games leading to their just reward, but games in which he had much the worst of the position and, by virtue of a spectacular move or sacrificial concept, 'swindled' his opponent out of a seemingly sure victory. ... So often did a 'Marshall swindle' occur that the term became part of the chess lexicon." Anthony Saidy and Norman Lessing, ''The World of Chess'', Random House, 1974, pp. 152–53. ISBN 0-394-48777-X.〕 Marshall was proud of his reputation for swindles,〔David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, ''The Oxford Companion to Chess'', Oxford University Press, 1984, p. 205. ISBN 0-19-217540-8.〕 and in 1914 wrote a book entitled ''Marshall's Chess "Swindles"''.〔Frank James Marshall, ''Marshall's Chess "Swindles"'', American Chess Bulletin, 1914.〕〔Nathan Divinsky, ''The Batsford Chess Encyclopedia'', B.T. Batsford Ltd, 1990, p. 125. ISBN 0-7134-6214-0.〕 ==Noted swindles== Frank Marshall, a gifted tactician who was one of the world's strongest players in the early 20th century,〔Marshall lost a 1907 match for the world championship to reigning world champion Emanuel Lasker. Chessmetrics ranks Marshall the number 2 player in the world as of August 1913. ()〕 has been called "the most renowned of swindlers".〔David Vincent Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, ''The Oxford Companion to Chess'', Oxford University Press, 1984, p. 337. ISBN 0-19-217540-8〕 To Marshall, the term swindle "meant a particularly imaginative method of rescuing a difficult, if not lost, position." The phrase "Marshall swindle" was coined because Marshall "was famed for extricating himself from hopeless positions by such means". Perhaps the most celebrated of his many "Marshall swindles" occurred in Marshall–Marco, Monte Carlo 1904.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=Frank Marshall, The King of Traps )〕 Marshall wrote of the position in the left-most diagram, "White's position has become desperate, as the hostile () must queen." White could play 45.Rxc7+, but Black would simply respond 45...Kb8, winning. Many players would resign here, but Marshall saw an opportunity for "a last 'swindle. He continued 45.c6! Now Black could have played 45...bxc6!, but disdained it because White could then play 46.Rxc7+ Kb8 47.Rb7+! Kxb7 48.Nc5+, winning Black's rook and stopping Black's pawn from advancing. Black should have played this line, however, because he still wins after 48...Ka7 49.Nxa4 Bd4! (trapping the knight) 50.Kf3 Ka6 51.Ke4 Ka5 52.Kxd4 Kxa4 53.Kc3 Ka3 and Black's pawn queens after all. Instead, Marco played 45...Be5?, mistakenly thinking that this would put an end to Marshall's tricks. The game continued 46.cxb7+ Kb8 (46...Kxb7? 47.Nc5+ wins the rook) 47.Nc5! Ra2+ 48.Kh3 b2 49.Re7! Ka7 Not 49...b1=Q?? 50.Re8+ Ka7 51.Ra8+ Kb6 52.b8=Q+, winning Black's newly created queen. 50.Re8! c6! 51.Ra8+ Kb6 52.Rxa2! b1=Q (right-most diagram). White's resources finally seem to be at an end, but now Marshall revealed his deeply hidden point: 53.b8=Q+! Bxb8 54.Rb2+! Qxb2 55.Na4+ Kb5 56.Nxb2. Marshall has caught Black's pawn after all, and is now a pawn up in a position where it is Black who is fighting for a draw. Fred Reinfeld and Irving Chernev commented, "Marshall's manner of extricating himself from his difficulties is reminiscent of an end-game by Rinck or Troitsky!"〔Fred Reinfeld and Irving Chernev, ''Chess Strategy and Tactics'', David McKay, 1946, p. 36.〕 Marshall won the game after a further mistake by Black.〔According to Marshall, Black could have drawn with 65...Ke6 (instead of 65...Ke4?) 66.h5 Kf7 67.Kf5 Kg8 "and the game is a draw, as the Knight cannot leave the vicinity of the Black Pawn." Marshall 1960, p. 61.〕〔Soltis agrees with Marshall's aforementioned analysis. Soltis 1994, p. 51〕 The well-known swindle seen in Evans–Reshevsky, U.S. Championship 1963–64,〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=Evans–Reshevsky, U.S. Championship 1963–64 )〕 has been dubbed the "Swindle of the Century".〔Larry Evans, ''Chess Catechism'', Simon and Schuster, 1970, p. 66. SBN 671-21531-0. It appears that Evans himself was the first to refer to the game as the "Swindle of the Century" in print, in his annotations in ''American Chess Quarterly'' magazine, of which he was the Editor-in-Chief. ''American Chess Quarterly'', Vol. 3, No. 3 (Winter, 1964), p. 171. Hans Kmoch referred to the conclusion of the game less grandiosely as "A Hilarious Finish". Hans Kmoch, "United States Championship", ''Chess Review'', March 1964, pp. 76–79, at p. 79. Also available on DVD (p. 89 of "Chess Review 1964" PDF file).〕 Evans wrote, "Black is a Knight ahead and can win as he pleases. Instead of resigning, White offered a little prayer" with 47.h4!〔Evans, ''Chess Catechism'', at 67.〕 (See left-most position.) The game continued 47...Re2+ 48.Kh1 Qxg3?? Black wins with 48...Qg6! 49.Rf8 Qe6! 50.Rh8+ Kg6, and now Black remains a piece ahead after 51.Qxe6 Nxe6, or forces mate after 51.gxf4 Re1+ and 52...Qa2+.〔Kmoch, p. 79 (p. 89 on DVD).〕〔Nikolai Krogius, ''Psychology in Chess'', R.H.M. Press, 1976, p. 33. ISBN 0-89058-023-5.〕 Evans concluded the game with 49.Qg8+! Kxg8 50.Rxg7+! (right-most diagram) ½–½ The players agreed to a draw, since capturing the rook produces stalemate, but otherwise the rook stays on the seventh rank and checks Black's king ''ad infinitum''.〔 This swindle enabled Evans to finish outright second in the tournament at 7½/11 (behind Bobby Fischer's historic 11–0 sweep), while Reshevsky was relegated to a tie for fourth–fifth place with 6½/11.〔Robert G. Wade and Kevin J. O'Connell, ''Bobby Fischer's Chess Games'', Doubleday, 2nd ed. 1973, p. 76. ISBN 0-385-08627-X.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Swindle (chess)」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|