|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-26-05 | | Chopin: This guy should play checkers instead. |
|
| Mar-10-06 | | Autoreparaturwerkbau: <Chopin> There's actually 1 good move by poor Tobor in this database. It's 24...Qa5 in V M Pedersen vs D Tobor, 1991. ;-) |
|
| Mar-24-06 | | WarmasterKron: <Chopin> But isn't checkers for tramps? |
|
| Mar-31-06 | | McCool: This guy should've ended his chess career right after that move. |
|
Nov-12-06
 | | FSR: Legend has it that there's an even shorter correspondence game. After 1.d4, Black played 1...g6, and wrote, "If any, then 2...Bg7." So White played 2.Bh6!! Bg7 3.Bxg7 and Black resigned. |
|
| Jan-03-08 | | whiteshark: Mixed it with the Two Nights Variation ... |
|
| Feb-15-08 | | whiteshark: You are to funny, <whiteshark> .... |
|
| Feb-15-08 | | whiteshark: ...to ring the funny farm. |
|
| Feb-15-08 | | sallom89: <aw1988: Lol Lawrence, that works. But I think I'll stay away from that opening.> lol! |
|
| Feb-15-08 | | whiteshark: Hello, m.hospital... yes, <sallom89>, he is surely... Oh, good, he'll be in good hands ... Yes, very very sad... lol! |
|
| Apr-22-08 | | Kukka: This is what correspondence players get when they try too hard to refute the Latvian. |
|
| Dec-04-08 | | Crowaholic: <aw1988>, <Lawrence>There's a similar gambit in the four knights game: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5!? Nxe5 5. d4 which can be quite deadly, although data by chessgames.com suggests that Black has a good game after 5. ..Ng6 6. e5 Ng8 7. Bc4 d5! 8. Bxd5 c6 9. Bb3 Be6 See also:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/tour/br... |
|
| Dec-21-08 | | YoungEd: What do you think White's expression was when he got the card with Black's third move on it? Aaaaagh |
|
| Jan-17-09 | | WhiteRook48: 3. Ng5?? why did white play that? |
|
| Jan-24-09 | | whiteshark: <Sorry, there are no games similar to this one in the database.> The obvious question is <why> ... |
|
| Jan-24-09 | | Gilmoy: Hasbro, c.1980s: "`tobor` is `robot` spelled backwards!" http://www.doyouremember.co.uk/memo... |
|
| Jan-24-09 | | whiteshark: <Gilmoy> GREAT!!! ... and if you spell his forename this way, too you get <felted robot>! |
|
| Jan-31-10 | | neverSummeRed: This should be GOTD.
Perfect play by black |
|
May-20-12
 | | GrahamClayton: <Benzol>I heard of 'chess blindness' and even suffered from a bout or two of it in over the board play, but at correspondence? <Benzol>,
With CC you are playing all the games simultaneously, so Tobor might have got 2 separate games mixed up. I have been guilty of making moves in the opening phase of my CC games without referring to the actual position, but not as drastic as this example. |
|
| Nov-30-12 | | wildrookie: 4. d4 and white is a pawn up |
|
| Aug-08-13 | | GumboGambit: Looks like this line of the G5 Summitt Gambit did not progress according to plan. Thorhetical novelties dont always work I suppose. |
|
| Aug-29-13 | | Abdel Irada: <FSR: Legend has it that there's an even shorter correspondence game. After 1.d4, Black played 1...g6, and wrote, "If any, then 2...Bg7." So White played 2.Bh6!! Bg7 3.Bxg7 and Black resigned.> I read a slightly different version.
In this one, Black "pre-moved" by sending, "1. ...g6 and 2. ...Bg7, if any," figuring perhaps on saving a bit of time with his perfunctory Modern Defense. Unfortunately, White was less perfunctory and replied with "1. d4, 2. Bh6 and 3. Bxg7." Either way, at least two generations of correspondence players now know better than to send "...if any" without careful consideration. ∞ |
|
Aug-29-13
 | | perfidious: <Abdel Irada>: Here is what happened in favour of a friend, long ago: H W Apperly vs H Charlick, 1894 J Van Der Kooij vs De Neef, 1988 |
|
| Aug-27-14 | | Ke2: An important game, like Karpov-Van Der Wiel, which refutes a critical opening novelty. |
|
| Dec-13-14 | | TheBish: He must have written "6375" instead of "6355", if he was using ICCF numerical notation. (63 is f3, 55 is e5, 75 is g5 -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICCF_n... |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
