Perseverance is an important attribute for chessplayers. It's very important not to give up - whether in an individual game, or pursuing an idea.
Perhaps the greatest story of persevervance in chess involves two of the world's top players from over a century ago. Emmanuel Lasker was the World Champion at the time of the St. Petersburg tournament of 1896, having dethroned Steinitz two years before. Harry Nelson Pillsbury of Philadelphia, USA, was the up-and-coming American who many figured would shortly challenge Dr. Lasker for his title.
Such a match never came to be, but their games in tournaments at the time were always hard-fought and closely contested. Their game from St. Petersburg was no exception. The tournament was the famous "Quadrangular" invitational featuring Lasker, Steinitz, Pillsbury, and Tchgorin, the four strongest players in the world. The title "Grandmaster of Chess" was invented for the event, and bestowed by the Czar upon the contestants.
The players contested six games against each opponent. After the first half, Pillsbury led the event by a full point over Lasker, but his health began its long decline and he only scored 1.5 out of 9 in the second half, falling to third place.
1.d4
d5
2.c4
e6
3.Nc3
Nf6
4.Nf3
c5
5.Bg5
These were the early days of the Queen Pawn openings, and the masters were still only beginning to establish the opening theory in them. The method chosen by Pillsbury seems strange to us today, but was popular at the time.
5...cxd4
6.Qxd4
Nc6
7.Qh4
Be7
8.0-0-0
Qa5
9.e3
Bd7
[9...h6
would have already secured a good game for Black, and modern players would have played it even earlier, but at this time it was still considered a dangerous weakening of the King side]
10.Kb1
h6
At last!
11.cxd5
exd5
12.Nd4
0-0
13.Bxf6
Bxf6
14.Qh5
Nxd4
15.exd4
Be6
16.f4
Rac8
17.f5
Rxc3
Exchange sacrifices were rare at the time, so Lasker's sac here was something of a sensation. With the benefit of Fritz, though, Black could have safely crafted an edge with the simple [17...Bd7
intending ...Ba4]
18.fxe6
Ra3
19.exf7+
Rxf7
20.bxa3
Qb6+
21.Bb5
Qxb5+
22.Ka1
Rc7
23.Rd2
Rc4
24.Rhd1
Rc3?
[Simply 24...Qc6
would have maintained a winning advantage for Black. The time control in those days was 30/2, which probably accounts for the mutual errors here.]
25.Qf5
Qc4
26.Kb2?
with Kb1 instead, White could have weathered the attack and kept the material.
26...Rxa3
27.Qe6+
Kh7
28.Kxa3?
And again here, Pillsbury could survive with [28.Qf5+
Kh8
29.Kb1
instead]
28...Qc3+
29.Ka4
b5+
30.Kxb5
Qc4+
31.Ka5
Bd8+
32.Qb6
Bxb6#
Pillsbury was devastated by this defeat. He felt certain he should have won the game. Although he later found his defensive mistakes, he was convinced White had stronger play in the early opening, and devoted himself to finding it.
Along with his close friend and fellow Philadelphian William Ewart Napier, he analyzed and played the variation over and over until he found what he believed to be the answer. Now, though, the question became: would Lasker ever give him a chance to show it? The two would meet several more times, but either Lasker had White or avoided the line.
Meanwhile, Pillsbury and Napier continued playing the position, with Napier taking the Black side. They would go on in this way for eight years before the opportunity arose. 0-1