Having a losing game be your masterpiece?

[Subotai]

I have been reading John Fairbairn's account of Honinbo Shuei's life and his game. He suggests that Shuei's August 23rd 1904 game versus Karigane is his masterpiece, which Shuei lost (though he did give two stones).

I found it odd that a lost game can be someone's masterpiece as when we usually think of it as a some type of triumph or victory.

Furthermore when I study a player I usually only replay the games they won as in those games their style succeeded. Is this the right way to go about it? Should we look at a players losses too?

[Jujube]

From the first game of Appreciating Famous Games, a 2-stone handicap game where Dosaku (the stronger player) lost by 1 point (and this is his 'masterpiece game'):

"How Dosaku ever managed to get within 1 point is almost beyond comprehension. There is a custom nowadays to call a two-stone game you lose by 1 point your 'lifetime masterpiece'."

[gowan]

Dosaku's two stone game that he lost as white by one point is his masterpiece because of the quality of his play overall. Same goes for Shuei. In these games Black also played well. In Shuei's case Karigane was a very strong player who was a candidate to become Shuei's successor as Honinbo.

[Tami]

If White is giving a handicap against a very strong player, then to bring the game to such a small margin is a great accomplishment.

Also, just because a player happens to lose the game does not mean they did not play extremely well. One should be able to learn much from the games our heroes lost as well as from their victories.

Finally, it takes two players to make a great game. A game could hardly be a masterpiece if the opponent had provided only flimsy resistance. The Shusai-Karigane game of 1926 is not a masterpiece only because of Shusai's play - Karigane's play, too, was wonderful.

[Bill Spight]

Finally, it takes two players to make a great game. A game could hardly be a masterpiece if the opponent had provided only flimsy resistance.

Worth repeating.