Talk:Swindle (chess)

message: This article is definitely interesting, and has plenty of interesting positions. At my level (elo 1223), swindles are quite common and I have been at both ends of that stick (my most memorable game was losing with an extra knight and bishop because I did not pay attention to some passed pawns, thankfully you will not see that game in ChessBase or on my userpage!). Regarding the article, I have some suggestions:
===General===
*In my mind, a "swindle" usually refers to a rather dramatic and rapid change of fortune, an ensnarement which suddenly changes the outcome. If a player accepts an unsound gambit (and gets a won position), but then starts dillying with passive play, letting the opponent gradually build up an attack which slowly becomes unstoppable, I would call it being outplayed, not a swindle.
*Swindles happen in lost positions, and must include a mistake from the swindled. As such I think each example should start with a position shortly before the turning point. The setting of the trap, the blunder which falls into the trap, and the swift punishment. For instance, the first example (Marshall-MacClure) does not show where MacClure treads wrong.
*A bit about how a blunder from the opponent can be induced. To prevent anything on this being original research there are some pretty good paper sources, the two which come to mind is "Saving Lost Positions", a Back to Basics column by :Lev Alburt and :Larry Parr in the October 1994 Chess Life (which, among other things, advocates alertness, sound counterplay, randomization, and muddy waters), and the chapter "Fortune favors the lucky" in Chess for Tigers by Simon Webb (also advocating muddy and unclear waters, but also something on demeanor at the board. I seem to remember Alexander Kotov once getting lulled by the despondant opponent who was apparently getting ready to leave, putting his hat on and crumpling up the scoresheet.)
===Stalemate===
*The games listed in the beginning should have an external link to the games. (I see there is a link to stalemate, but that article can quickly change some day, breaking the chain here.)
*The bit on time trouble has nothing to do with stalemate, and should perhaps be in a section on inducing blunders (see general.)
===Material insufficiency===
*Not entirely convinced that this has so much to do with swindling. Is it simply not a regular drawing technique? If I get into a trouble and decide to start trading pieces to reach an inferior, but drawn endgame with reduced material without ever getting a lost position at any point, I may have defended well but I have hardly carried out a "swindle".
Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some comments

message: *Not entirely convinced that this has so much to do with swindling. Is it simply not a regular drawing technique? If I get into a trouble and decide to start trading pieces to reach an inferior, but drawn endgame with reduced material without ever getting a lost position at any point, I may have defended well but I have hardly carried out a "swindle".
Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Material insufficiency

message: I think the first two diagrams in this section and the paragraph (two sentences) starting "In the position... " can be removed.  Basically a duplication of what is in the zugzwang article, and nothing specifically about Swindle.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zugzwang 

message: Left half of board only is shown in two positions. "Position after 39...Nf3+!!" and "Position after 61.Nf5!!". I guess this is some sort of template issue? ChessCreator (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, I can see the whole board in these two positions. Does anyone have any idea why ChessCreator is having this problem, and how I can fix this? Krakatoa (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After a bit of checking. This error occurs in Firefox (version 2) but not in Internet Explorer (version 7). The problem occurs when two diagrams are used next to each other, and the one on the right is only partly shown using 'template: Chess diagram'.  ChessCreator (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The display has changed but it's not fixed. The wording under the diagrams is now both on the left diagram. ChessCreator (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of tcenter is busted in general, and just a bad idea.  Use tleft for both the diagrams and let them stack naturally. I've made that update in the article.  Quale (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, looks far better now. White space looks less obvious then it did previously. ChessCreator (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram display issue 

message: I tried to improve the diagram and image placement in the article, but it's a difficult task.  We could consider using smaller diagrams (Template:chess diagram small).  They would make placement easier and might allow for greater use of text flow the the right or left of the diagrams, and reduce the number of float clears () needed.  All that is required is to use chess diagram small where we currently have chess diagram.  One article that uses both sizes of diagram is Slav Defense.  Quale (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Had a go at chess diagram small but didn't save as the small diagrams make the white space even bigger and therefore more obvious. ChessCreator (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider using smaller diagrams 

message: This article has been subject to a review within the WikiProject Chess in order to assess whether quality could be assessed as A-class. The review began on 4th March 2008 and ended on 18th March 2008. The discussion is reproduced hereafter so that editors can find hints on how to improve the article. The original discussion can also be consulted here. SyG (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A-class review

message: The image :Image:FrankMarshall.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      Image:TonyMiles.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fairusebot has now swiped the picture of Frank Marshall that graced this article - the same picture that still appears in the Frank Marshall article.  Marshall has been dead about 60 years now. The picture in question looks to have been taken when he was pretty young (maybe in his heyday when IIRC he won Cambridge Springs 1904 2 points ahead of Lasker), so I'm guessing it's a century or more old? Surely this picture is in the public domain by now? Krakatoa (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it was published in the US before 1923 then it is in the public domain.  In some cases the catch is "was it published in the US before 1923?"  There is also the "fair use" criteria. Bubba73 (talk), 20:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:FrankMarshall.jpg

message: In the diagram that showed the so-called Marshall masher, Black can immediately play Rf1# rather than Qe4.209.155.146.2 (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be illegal, since it would put Black's king in check by White's queen. Krakatoa (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Qe4 was not the best move

message: Marshall did not call his book by that particular title in reference to 'swindling' lost games. The book is available via google books. In the introduction he says that games where he took unpracticed theorists by surprise were derisively called "Swindles", and he decided to publish a collection of such games. I would assume this is why the title has the word "Swindles" in quotes.
67.194.193.80 (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. The title is really a misnomer; IIRC Soltis referred to it as "unfortunately named." It would be better called "Marshall's Best Games of Chess." Krakatoa (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Frank Marshall's Swindles

message: A photo of Karpov was added March '08, but there is no photo of any other "swindler", including Evans, Miles, Christiansen, J. Polgar, S. Polgar, and etc. So, w/o context of others' photos, Karpov's seems out of place (i.e. what reason to include only his?). So am removing on that basis. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sticky-out photo 

message: THis is an excellent example of a swindle (I may have colors reverseed) That is well sourced in one of seirawan's winning chess books.  It shows thorhallson refusing to execute a bishop, but rather running to the corner with his king for a bishop and wrong color rook pawn draw.
Tazerdadog (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Gershon - Thorhallson

message: Some problems in the Practical considerations section:
* Per WP:NOTHOWTO, it should be written as observations on how swindlers tend to succeed, not advice on how you too can be a successful swindler.
* Confusing numbering: Simon Webb's 'five "secrets of swindling"' are numbered 1 to 6. Are are the unindented sections after numbers 3, 5, and 6 meant to be part of the preceding numbers? Tying them to Webb may violate wp:synth.
jnestorius(talk) 23:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practical considerations 

message: in the article, it says: "Now Black could have played 45...bxc6!"
No, they couldn't have, the bishop is on the wrong colour of square to go there. 
Somebody please fix this.Bomberswarm2 (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "45...bxc6" refers to the pawn on the b-file capturing to c6, which is perfectly legal. A bishop capturing to c6 would be "45...Bxc6", using a capital B instead. Double sharp (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  impossible move 

message: The bit in the lead about "swindles" carrying a "moral stigma" seems strangely unbalanced. After all, in the 2012 Olympic badminton tournament, several players got sent home in disgrace for 'unsportingly' not trying to win their matches (because the losers would face easier opponents in the next round). So unless 'chess morality' is unanimously different from 'Olympic morality', there ought to be some people claiming that failing to look for swindles is 'failing to try to win' and therefore unsportsmanlike, lazy, cheating, letting your country down, ruining the spectators' enjoyment, and so on, while looking for swindles is your clear moral and sporting duty, so it would seem strange if there are no Reliable Sources mentioning such a viewpoint (possibly as a minority one, though I suspect it's actually a majority view among ordinary people, as distinct perhaps from professional players with a trade union mentality towards having to work harder to win). I'm not sufficiently interested to try to find such a RS, but some other editor might be. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stigma 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Swindle (chess). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080213020308/http://www.fide.com:80/ratings/top_files.phtml?id=14100010 to http://www.fide.com/ratings/top_files.phtml?id=14100010
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060930090528/http://www.4ncl.co.uk/pein19.htm to http://www.4ncl.co.uk/pein19.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The "shouting check" section has me kind of puzzled.  Most of it is an unsourced quotation (you can find it here, though I suspect it's originally from a book or some other printed source).  The subsequent commentary misspells the names of both players, and there are no citations or links.  My impulse is to delete the entire section, but maybe it can be salvaged, so I thought I'd post about it in case other people feel differently. 2601:801:3:1A80:CDC8:381A:8755:1D6B (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't very good, so I am in favor of removing it. Quale (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely dreadful. I've removed it. Even the article lede says ... 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. This was contradicted by the case described, which is just plain cheating, and very definitely unethical and unsportsmanlike. Brittle heaven (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete the "shouting check" section? 

message: Are there any examples of swindles involving a player stalemating their opponent so their opponent (not them) had no moves?  Also has it ever happened where the move to stalemate the opponent was the only drawing move available because all other moves would lose?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synesthetic (talk • contribs) 07:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawing by stalemating your opponent 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Rosen Trap. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 9#Rosen Trap until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Onel5969 TT me 19:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rosen Trap" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The article clearly says in the lead that for a swindle to happen, the player that swindles must be losing before it. But there are more than one example of supposed swindles in this article in which this didn't happen. At one point it even says something like "The previous examples aren't bona fide swindles..." - if they aren't, what are they doing here? I propose we remove all those cases--Ngfsmg (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not true swindles