Oct-18-21 O Privorotsky vs A Bukhover, 1960 
| |
| 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
| |
| 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
| |
| goodevans: The Scandinavian taking a bit of a bashing this weekend. |
|
|
|
Oct-16-21 Blackburne vs Lush, 1885
| |
| 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
| |
| 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
| |
| 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
| |
| 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
| |
| 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
| |
| 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 |
|
|
|
| indicates a reply to the comment. |
|
Kibitzing
