Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
Detlef Tobor vs Wolfgang Stamer
corr BRD ch 18 (1984) (correspondence), corr BRD ch 18
Latvian Gambit: General (C40)  ·  0-1



explore this opening
find similar games 18 more games of D Tobor
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" button below the game.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.


Kibitzer's Corner
< 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.
Premium Chessgames Member
  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: ring the funny farm.
Feb-15-08  sallom89: <aw1988: Lol Lawrence, that works. But I think I'll stay away from that opening.>


Feb-15-08  whiteshark: Hello, yes, <sallom89>, he is surely... Oh, good, he'll be in good hands ... Yes, very very sad...


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 suggests that Black has a good game after 5. ..Ng6 6. e5 Ng8 7. Bc4 d5! 8. Bxd5 c6 9. Bb3 Be6

See also:

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!"
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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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?

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.

Premium Chessgames Member
  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
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CORRESPONDENCE. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
Latvian gambit vs Sleeping man
from Latvian gambit victories by InspiredByMorphy
Correspondence offering
from What Not To Do in the First Three Moves by iron maiden
Latvian Gambit 3.Ng5??
from Horrible theoretical novelties by FSR
by painho
3. Ng5?? is a bad novelty
from MorphyMatt's world of the weird by MorphyMatt
from Latvian Gambit Ensemble.... by schnarre
Bad Correspondence Games
by gazzawhite
Game collection: a
by P KKt sq
The Knight Gambit Variation of the Latvian Gambit
from Formula7's favorite games by Formula7
zumakal blunders archivadas4
by zumakal
Clue #14
from Holiday Present Hunt Solutions: 2014 by Penguincw
How Not to Play Against the Latvian Gambit
from Super-brevities by FSR
Latvian gambit vs Sleeping man
from Latvian gambit victories by brucemubayiwa
Latvian Gambit 3.Ng5? (C40) 0-1Capture or develop a different U
from 4 -ER Others said so Cicero by fredthebear
Latvian Gambit 3.Ng5? (C40) 0-1Capture or develop a different U
from Greco's CG Circus that FTB avoids Stan by fredthebear
by Nephrons1
Latvian Gambit 3.Ng5? (C40) 0-1Capture or develop a different U
from Ng5 is a castle playground of Fredthebear by mneuwirth
Latvian gambit vs Sleeping man
from Latvian gambit victories by Retarf

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2023, Chessgames Services LLC