#indiangame #maddigangambit #doubleblunder #recovery
For the best performance, chess and wine don't mix... This game is a cautionary tale!
However, if one's goal is to have fun while meeting a friend, it's perfectly fine. As usual, it depends on context!
Last week I posted a video of a game of casual chess over-the-board at one of the local bars in Newtown, Sydney Australia. I only included the first game in that video as I'd accidentally knocked my micro-tripod off alignment between games so the recording wasn't useable. However, my mate (dr_magneto) and I played two games of 15+10 rapid on the Chessnut Air board, and this is the second game. I had the Black pieces, and this is the story of how alcohol can muddle your calculations in chess!
My mate is a man of culture, so led with the Queen's Pawn Opening (1. d4). I'd recently been doing some research on my book on the Budapest Gambit, so rather than my usual Englund Gambit, I responded with (1... Nf6), the Indian Game, which potentially leads to the Budapest Gambit. However, White responded with (2. Nc3) rather than (2. c4). Undeterred, I decided to play a (2... e5) anyway! Apparently, this is known as the "Maddigan Gambit, and I was hoping for a Budapest-like line with dxe5 and then Ng4. However, this isn't a promising line according to the Lichess community database with White having a clear win advantage (53%) vs Black (44%).
White declined the gambit by advancing their d-pawn (3. d5) and I immediately provoked again with (3... c6). Again, they declined the capture, playing (5. e4) to consolidate the centre, and so I developed (5... Bc5) and White then decided to pin my knight to the queen (5. Bg5).
By this point, I'd had a couple of glasses of very nice pinot noir and made a very silly blunder. Being tipsy, I had it in my mind that I had an unpinning tactic available, and simply launched it without a sanity check! First, the bishop sacrifice-capture the f2-pawn with check, drawing White's king onto the f-file (5... Bxf2+?? 6. Kxf2). And then, unpin the knight with check (6... Ng4+)... and I realised my mistake too late! The diagonal was open so the g4 square was defended by White's queen (7. Qxg4)! Rather than a brilliancy, I had a double-blunder! Whoops!
Now, a sensible person might resign from the position. On analysis, Stockfish gives the evaluation at better than [+6] for White! However, I decided to play on and treat this simply as a handicap and a challenge! I've written this before, but there is a certain intellectual pleasure trying to come back from a completely losing position! When there are still a lot of pieces on the board, it's often possible to equalise in beginner-intermediate games. When there are few pieces, it is sometimes still possible to draw.
I must admit that the realisation of my double-blunder did sober me up! I noted the tactical resources that I had - which wasn't very much! Firstly, White's king cannot castle and is exposed on the f-file and the dark squares. Secondly, I had a potential discovered attack on White's queen by my light square bishop. As for some immediate threats, White's bishop and queen on the kingside felt very threatening, especially with the lack of defensive pieces on that side.
And with that threat, I found a rather lovely and flamboyant manoeuvre, (8... Qb6+ 9. Ke1 Qe3+ 10. Nge2 Qh6), rotating the queen flying across the board, making use of two checks, to provide the extra defence needed on the kingside. After castling short, I felt that my king was safe for now.
I noticed in the game that my mate wasn't sure how to progress, which gave me an advantage. Strategically, White has a simple approach. As they have a massive piece advantage (7 vs 5 pieces) a good plan is to force piece trades, especially the queens, and simplify the game towards a winning endgame. However, they seemed to have an aversion to losing material, and common bias, and were looking for winning attacks rather than forcing confrontations.
White advanced their knight to attack the queenside and (13. Nc7?!) directly attacked my a8-rook. However, I uncorked (13... d5), revealing the attack on White's queen. White opted to rotate their knight (14. Ne6?!), which pinned it to the queen. However, this set up a second attacker on g7, which gives White an opportunity to force a queen trade.
I found my own counterattack with (14... Nb4), which looks increasingly threatening the more you calculate. There was the obvious Nxc2+, an absolute fork of White's king and rook. However, if White moved their king to the wrong square, a second knight move might result in a royal fork! White responded to the threat with a passive rook move (15. Rc1?!). However, I found a way to increase the pressure with by pushing the d-pawn to d4, with the threat of d3!
White cracked under pressure and moved their rook a second time to cover the d-file (16. Rd1??), but this was a blunder! Remember the weak dark squares around White's king? My queen on h6 still covered the dark squares and White NEEDED to trade off my queen the turn before as there was now a checkmate-in-two. After (16... Nxc2+), Black's king had only one legal move (17. Kf2), and then (17. Qe3#) mate! GG!
The big takeaway from this game is to play on after a mistake in the opening! It is often possible to not only equalise but gain the advantage!
Game: https://www.chess.com/analysis/library/3a5B3dbrFQ
See original here:
TIPSY Chess | WINNING after blundering 2 pieces in the opening! - Chess.com