Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing User Profile

Member since Nov-28-05 · Last seen Oct-21-21
no bio
>> Click here to see goodevans's game collections.

   goodevans has kibitzed 2767 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Oct-18-21 O Privorotsky vs A Bukhover, 1960 (replies)
goodevans: <Phony Benoni> Not wishing to be a party-pooper but a crucial difference is that Anderssen's victorious king walk relied on a huge mistake by his opponent. I don't like to use the term 'blunder' lightly but I'm inclined to use it there. <Dionysius1> Sarcasm is unfairly
   Oct-18-21 Anderssen vs de Riviere, 1859
goodevans: "Escape to Victory"
   Oct-17-21 Axel Smith vs Jansa, 2009 (replies)
goodevans: <raymondhow> I'm not sure anyone's solved it today because I've not seen anyone post a winning analysis of 19.Bxh7+ Kxh7 20.g6+ Kg8. Maybe it's just a bad puzzle without a proper solution. But it's an interesting position to ponder over even if it doesn't quite hold together
   Oct-17-21 Keres vs A Sakovski, 1936 (replies)
goodevans: The Scandinavian taking a bit of a bashing this weekend.
   Oct-16-21 Blackburne vs Lush, 1885 (replies)
goodevans: N.B. After 9.hxg4 hxg4 10.Ne5 Bxe5 11.dxe5 Qxe5 12.Re1 Qh2+ 13.Kf1 Black can't continue the attack with 13...Qh1+ 14.Ke2 Qxg2 [DIAGRAM] ... because 15.Be4 followed by 16.Rh1 wins at least Q for R.
   Oct-13-21 J J Rousseau vs D Hume, 1765 (replies)
goodevans: <Vermit: A game between two philosophers and we end up pondering whether it is real or not. Oh the irony!> Just brilliant! You would have to wonder why two eminent philosophers would conspire in such a way and the moves to me look plausible enough for a game between an ...
   Oct-12-21 Korchnoi vs Romanishin, 1992 (replies)
goodevans: <FSR [...] Romanishin played 22...Re6 because he was counting on the counterattack with ...Rg6 and ...Qg5 to save him.> That was no doubt also his reasoning behind the otherwise baffling <19...Bh6>. Even more baffling are the SF annotations to this game. Most of them ...
   Oct-10-21 B Schneider vs W Kraft, 2000 (replies)
goodevans: Lovely play by Black but surely <20.Qa4?> was tantamount to capitulation. What on earth was the Q supposed to achieve with her foray to c6? After <20.Qb4> Black would have had the option to sacrifice with <20...Nxc5 21.Qxc5 d4> but after <22.Rd1> things ...
   Oct-10-21 Ponomariov vs Topalov, 2005 (replies)
goodevans: I was thinking this was a tad easy for a Sunday but when I delved further I found there was a fine point I'd overlooked. The critical question arises after White's 28.Rcc8: [DIAGRAM] It's clear that if White can attack the N with h5 (or f5 if Black advances his e-pawn) then ...
   Oct-09-21 T Luther vs P Tregubov, 2001 (replies)
goodevans: <Stanco: 36.Qh5 mates actually> Of course it does. Quite an oversight. I can only imagine White didn't see that 36...Bf6 (the only reasonable defence) could be answered by 37.Qh7 1-0
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

You are not logged in to
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:
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 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC