Deserving to Win

Well, I've pretty much had nothing to write about, since so far we've been lacking drama at the local scene (at least I haven't caught wind of any so far). I'd tell you first that this post more or less unrelated to what I expected to be writing about when I first started this 'blog'. I guess it does have a faint connection with why we tend to have problems advancing, since this subject can be related to our morale. But whatever. I'm only writing this because I'm bored to death right now, and it's been ages since my last post. My main policy still stands.

So, to start things off, I'd suppose that most people are familiar with this concept, and have their own taste of the experience of being on the receiving end and 'sending' end of a turn of the tables in a 'decided' game. And the feeling is, more or less, consciously, unconsciously or somewhere in between, "Why did this happen? I should have won! I was killing him and pressing to win! He didn't deserve shit!". Well, aside from citing the quote, "Your game is only as good as your worst move", or something like that, let me share my personal experience on this subject with you.

I was in a tournament some time back (sometime within the span of 3 days to 127 years ago). My opponent for the round had a much higher rating than me at the time, and I'm pretty sure I was playing either white or black. So anyway, the game starts, and my opponent plays relatively quickly. He misplays the opening by making a move-order inaccuracy on move 8, which I capitalized on. We reach a position where my opponent's position began to look troubled in many variations, despite the fact that the present position looked rather calm. I had 1:00 to his 1:20. He realized this, and started to spend a lot of time on each move he makes. He spends half an hour over the next 5 moves, and I spent 10 minutes. We've reached a position where I have a lot of potential for a sudden attack against his king. His position looked pretty defenseless, and he spends the next 40 minutes thinking. For a certain duration of this time I was wondering if he was disgusted and refused to simply resign because he was about to be destroyed by a player who he should statistically be scoring some 80% against.

Finally, with less than 10 minutes on his clock he makes a move that doesn't seem to change anything in the position, but he was threatening to win some material (albeit being irrelevant to the action that's going on). But as I looked at the position I started to doubt my attack. Maybe he can hold off the attack with only minimal loss of material, then I would have had a net loss of material, which would pressure me to attack even further, which is risky and such, considering that there was even the possibility of a counterattack. After thinking for half an hour, I didn't see an immediate win with my programmed move, so I decided to play a different move. He instantly replies with a move that parries the threat but fails to create one(the threat he created was pinned, so to speak). But then I looked at the position again. I had no way to continue my 'attack'. Let's skip the technical details of why, it's boring and irrelevant.

Soon it dawned upon me that his position had some sort of 'coil-spring effect' onto mine. He had threats of his own. The position finally simplified into a 3-piece endgame, and I continued to play badly, and since there was an increase in time, my opponent won. I was horrified at the end of the game. How could this happen? He was just defending, and at one point he even offered me a repetition of moves! I was doing all the work!

Then I analyzed the game. My handling of his slight error was great! I made all the best moves in the position. I was a genius! But then I took a second look. What would have a player slightly weaker than me done? Nothing different, I supposed. I realized that my moves were quite obvious for anyone familiar with the type of position that would arise. It was either that I make the moves I played, or allow my most valuable piece to be exchanged off. It was about as genius as not playing 5.Nxe5 in the exchange Ruy Lopez.

Fine. But what about the position where I was about to destroy him? It was only 10 moves after his error! Of these 10 moves, the first 4 were obvious; the next 3, I could say were good strategical moves that led to a lot of trouble for my opponent; the next 3 were obvious...and the final one was my mistake. What was worse was that I realized, I should have just gone to sleep during my 30 minutes of thought. I had given my opponent an extra tempo in my calculations for my 'programmed move'. No wonder why my opponent spent ages thinking in that position! He probably realized that he was completely lost! But even then I realized, I was still winning in the extra-tempo-variation I had calculated! In other words, I spent those 30 minutes calculating utter crap. I had no idea of what made me make that move I played. But even then, further analysis showed that my position was still marginally better. After which I was gradually outplayed and lost anyway.

So I realized, perhaps I could argue that my opponent did not deserve to win. All of his problems were self-inflicted, akin to playing with fire. But did I deserve to win? Absolutely not! I didn't make any great moves; he just made bad ones. And in the final position, when the killing blow was right under my nose, I failed to find it(to add to my embarrassment, I should add that I gave my opponent the extra tempo only 3 moves into the variation). And because of that, the game equalized. After this oversight, and another, the position was rather balanced. I guess one could say that karma finds its way even on the chessboard! After that, I was outplayed; he came up with a better plan than I did in the endgame.

It was at this point when I would figure out: I was only winning due to a series of opening inaccuracies by my opponent! I only managed to punish it because I knew he had made a wrong-looking move since I (apparently) understood the position better than he did, since I happen to study that opening! I wasn't playing better than my opponent (as the result evidently suggests). I was simply, in the words of what some players call their opponents when they lose, 'lucky'. After the position leveled off, I was duly outplayed. That means my opponent played better than I did. And outplaying me meant that he did not simply win because of some one or two mistakes on my part, unlike what was happening to him earlier. I did not deserve to win, contrary to what one might think!

In fact, this phenomenon of a weaker player losing to a stronger player in a position which he/she 'did not deserve to lose' was more or less testified by my performance in subsequent rounds in that tournaments. I lost to higher rated players. But looking at my games against weaker players, I noticed that in 3 of them, the game had been reduced into rather equal 2-piece endgames, and yet I won at the end of each of them. And I even had one game which I won a losing endgame! Similarly in this case, I noticed that in the drawing games, I had presented my opponents with no chances to go wrong in the middlegame. That's why they made it to the endgame, which they ended up playing poorly! As for the losing one, all I did was make 1 mistake while pressing to win; and I turned the tables at the end! So to summarize these 4 'fortunate'(but I beg to differ) games, I asked myself: Was I playing well? The answer was, of course, a flat out 'no'. But then comes the question: did my opponent deserve to win/draw? Double no! They had shown no effort to do/create anything in the position prior to the evaluation being 'very drawish' or 'winning' for them!

[Also, a piece of advice to most Malaysian players: The players I had beaten in that manner are stronger than most of you. So don't agree to a draw in 'drawish' endgames only because endgame textbooks say so. It's only drawn when it's obviously drawn to you AND your opponent. A psychological fact too: Those who agree to draw only because it 'should be drawn', but don't know why, are simply doing that because they are afraid to lose. So don't fool yourself. Play on. And if your opponent offers the draw, you can deduce something from that. The experience will do you good.]

So what can one say about 'deserving to win'? Well, to me, after that experience, such a 'phenomenon' does not exist, not over the board at least (e.g. if you were completely winning and the tournament venue caught fire and the game had to be restarted, then yes, you deserved to win. But that's off the board interference). Say, if you make an elementary blunder in a won position, that would just show you were overconfident. You don't deserve to win. Remember that when you argue that one side does not 'deserve to win', that does not automatically imply that the other side does. In fact, if the score was awarded for 'a well-deserved win', I think those 5 games I played in that tournament will end with a 0-0 score at the end.

So the next time your opponent/friend/some random person tells you that they "deserved to win", please, show them this article.