I from time to time see players say that they don't feel good about a win because "the other person blundered." I don't resign games ever as I always feel like making every piece work as hard as possible. This has given me a reasonable share of Marshall-esque swindles. Was I outplayed all game save for a few moves? Definitely. But the object of the game isn't to play great for 30 moves, it's to checkmate the king. I often hear "good players don't make blunders in the endgame" etc. etc. but my own experience (at least against 1700+ players on this site) is that there is a much better than 1% chance of committing a swindle for a win or draw against players ranked anywhere in the 66 percentile (about 1750) rating and below on this site.
Here's my most recent swindle-my opponent is a better player than me as indicated by his rating. Yet despite being a rook down in the endgame I decided to plan an attack. I knew that it would be unlikely to work, but felt compelled to try.
The attack begins with my 30. H5. I could sense that my opponent wanted the security of a second queen and would ignore my pawn if I could get to H3. This is particularly so since his queen sits on D5, protecting G2. 33. C6 is to give me breathing room (and to distract from) my crucial move of 34. E4. Now I have a two-move mate if my opponent neglects to keep me in check. My intuition was right that he did want the second queen, a bitter Pyrrhic consolation for my opponent.
en.lichess.org/oQLQhIFZDOBP
Here's one from a month ago that I really enjoyed. I'm down a pawn and a minor piece in the endgame. I just decide that I'm going to try to get a bank-rank mate and starting at move 33, I fight for every inch of the board. Because the kings are asymmetric, I think there's a chance my opponent doesn't see what I see.
en.lichess.org/19t3Uaoi#88
These examples aren't to brag but to question why so many of my opponents simply resign and move on when there are some tactics left on the board.
A final note-32 of my classical games ended in stalemate. 25 of those involved me accomplishing the stalemate. I'd be ranked about 1500 if I resigned all my "lost" positions. Food for thought.
Here's my most recent swindle-my opponent is a better player than me as indicated by his rating. Yet despite being a rook down in the endgame I decided to plan an attack. I knew that it would be unlikely to work, but felt compelled to try.
The attack begins with my 30. H5. I could sense that my opponent wanted the security of a second queen and would ignore my pawn if I could get to H3. This is particularly so since his queen sits on D5, protecting G2. 33. C6 is to give me breathing room (and to distract from) my crucial move of 34. E4. Now I have a two-move mate if my opponent neglects to keep me in check. My intuition was right that he did want the second queen, a bitter Pyrrhic consolation for my opponent.
en.lichess.org/oQLQhIFZDOBP
Here's one from a month ago that I really enjoyed. I'm down a pawn and a minor piece in the endgame. I just decide that I'm going to try to get a bank-rank mate and starting at move 33, I fight for every inch of the board. Because the kings are asymmetric, I think there's a chance my opponent doesn't see what I see.
en.lichess.org/19t3Uaoi#88
These examples aren't to brag but to question why so many of my opponents simply resign and move on when there are some tactics left on the board.
A final note-32 of my classical games ended in stalemate. 25 of those involved me accomplishing the stalemate. I'd be ranked about 1500 if I resigned all my "lost" positions. Food for thought.