I just had an extremely interesting game! This time, I'm not going to show a fascinating tactical win - although those are usually more fun - but a fascinating tactical
rescue into a draw.
I'm playing Black; Black to move.

What's happened so far?
My opponent, a guy (I'm saying guy not just because of statistics but because he used a male name, so...) with a higher rating than I (about 60 points higher, which is a not quite
crushing but definitely
existent difference in playing strength) clearly knew the opening better than I did.
It was the Sicilian - so, an opening I actually know reasonably well, playing it myself - and he managed to out-theory me in a super-rare variation. (I just looked the thing up. It's interesting enough - I'll just not give the theoretical discussion here because I'm trying to keep things beginner-friendly. Let's just say I'm glad this happened in online chess and not in an actual tournament!) As a result, I lost the fight over the center, lost a pawn, lost another pawn, and... Uh, frankly, the position looks like I'm going to lose the
game.
I'm two pawns down without any positional compensation, and if my opponent manages to simplify, there's no way in hell I'll survive an endgame. Once enough material is exchanged, the passed white d-pawn will be unstoppable.
Except... I'm kinda sorta good at tactics.
I can defend this. XD
(I'm presenting this after checking the variations extremely carefully with computer help. Of course, the slightest mistake would have been deadly...)
31. ... Rxg3 LOLMUAHAHAHA! Another crazy rook sacrifice! :D And it
works.
I suppose I should mention there were actually, according to the computer,
two ways to hold this game a draw, the other being the excellent
31. ... g5!
32. Nf3 Re6!
33. Qa8 Re8!
which is an
easy and
obvious draw... The queen is chased and forth between a6 and a8 (because anything else just loses for White: the queen doesn't have any other squares, and losing the queen is not an option), and after the third repetition of the same position, the game is a draw...
I
wish I could tell you now that in the game I'd seen both ways and just decided on the more
fun one - but I
didn't. It's that g5 simply didn't occur to me... Rxg3 was literally
the only move that jumped at me (I don't know why, considering how absurd it looks - it might be lingering damage from watching too many Tal games...), and once I was sure that yes, it's going to work, I didn't look at other moves anymore. I think for most other players g5 would have been much more obvious! But anyway... Why simple when you can make it really, really complicated? XD So, I captured on g3.
32. Kxg3 Qc7+!This is kind of the point of the rook sacrifice: the white king is now in the open, and cannot flee back behind his own pawns anymore.
33. Kf2The only reasonable square, unless he wants to get himself checkmated, for example by
33. Kg4 Qf4+
34. Kh5 Qg5#
33. ... Qf4+And now there is nothing White can do to prevent the draw! To confirm this, we'll have to look at all three possible variations:
34. Kg1 Be3+
35. Kh1 Qxh4 and now material is suddenly equal again...
36. Qxb5 Nd2
...and yeah, the black attack on the white king is so strong that White doesn't have any better choice than giving perpetual check with Qd7+ and so on.
34. Nf3 Qe3+
35. Kg3 Qf4+
36. Kf2 Qe3+ and now White can either repeat moves and draw that way, or try
37. Kf1 Qd3+
38. Kf2 Qe3+ and repeat positions that way.
(Note that 38. Kg1 fails because of 38. ... Be3+ with Black winning the white rook on d1!)
34. Ke2 Qe3+
35. Kf1 with the same things happening as in the variation before this one: perpetual check with a repetition of positions.
So,
1/2 - 1/2Isn't this
absolutely crazy? I mean, not just that I found this - but also that I didn't see the much simpler method to achieve the same end? :D
Oh, and before
this game, I had another crazy encounter: a
won game, which I'm not going to show here - but anyway, it was an endgame with pawns and kings. It was
theoretically won. (Which I knew, because heck, I had endgame technique classes with one of the leading experts in endgame theory. I may
prefer creative chess, but there's nothing wrong with my technique; I'll be
bored, but I can handle pawn endgames just fine...) My opponent... could have resigned, but
didn't.
Of course I... won that thing. It wasn't particularly interesting chess, it was, literally,
pure technique, and I was actually a bit annoyed:
this is obviously won; does my opponent think I'm an idiot? But then, I figured
he was actually thinking. Also, he offered draw
twice, which would have been
insulting unless he really thought the position were a theoretical draw. Which was surprising because he had a fairly high rating, but he clearly had no idea what was happening. So I had to play that thing almost to the bitter end - he only resigned when it became really obvious that yes, I'm going to queen that pawn in something like four moves and he can't do sh*t about it.
We chatted a bit after the game. He turned out to be this perfectly nice guy from Iran, and yeah,
he wasn't sure what had just happened to him. He was all, like, "nice win of that drawn position, where exactly did I make the mistake?", and I had to answer him, "no, man, you played that perfectly fine, except it was theoretically lost something like 40 moves ago", and then he was like, "OHNOI'MSOSORRY!!!" Because, yeah, a bit awkward, that. XD I assured him it was far from a
trivial endgame - I mean, yeah, I thought it
was kinda trivial, but it's entirely possible I've just been coached better-than-average when it comes to dumb but efficient endgame technique... LOL Anyway, we had a nice relaxed conversation about endgames after that. Very pleasant.