Jun-13-09 Lasker vs Tarrasch, 1914 
|
Poohblah: 1. h5 Kxh5 2. Kf6 was my first thought. I had the right idea, but my method was flawed |
|
|
|
Jun-11-09 Ljubojevic vs Anand, 1994 
|
Poohblah: How did I not see
31. Bd5 Rxd5 32. Qxd5
jeez. That would explain a lot. |
|
|
|
Jun-09-09 R Ye vs Van Wely, 1997 
|
Poohblah: 8. Bxf6 followed by 9. Bd5 winning a piece due to the immobile Rook. |
|
|
|
Jun-08-09 C Pilnick vs H Seidman, 1954 
|
Poohblah: Bxh3... saw it in about 10 seconds |
|
|
|
May-31-09 Gligoric vs Stein, 1962 
|
Poohblah: very nice... but somebody please help out a mere mortal... why not 58. Rd8 ? |
|
|
|
May-31-09 Shirov vs Fressinet, 2004 
|
Poohblah: I was thinking something more active than 16. O-O-O but what do I know! explosive play indeed. well done to those who saw the line(s). |
|
|
|
May-26-09 C Bauer vs Korchnoi, 2003 
|
Poohblah: again, I'm an idiot. my post should read Qxf6+ not Qxf6#. |
|
|
|
May-19-09 Topalov vs Kramnik, 1999 
|
Poohblah: After 32. Rxc5 it isn't necessarily perpetual check due to 32. Rxc5 Ng3 33. Kf2 or am I missing something? |
|
|
|
May-17-09 L Tamarkin vs E Schiller, 1979 
|
Poohblah: Why not play 26. ... Rd2 instead of 27. ... Rd2? |
|
|
|
May-14-09 J Esser vs Breyer, 1916 
|
Poohblah: I got 23 ... Bb7 followed by ... Ba6 as well, though I had no idea what white would do. |
|
|
|
indicates a reply to the comment. |
|