Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing User Profile
Member since Sep-27-04 · Last seen Mar-29-15
no bio
>> Click here to see ulhumbrus's game collections.

   Ulhumbrus has kibitzed 19623 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Mar-29-15 Kramnik vs Leko, 2004
Ulhumbrus: After the move 25...Qd3 Black's queen has occupied a magnificent looking square. Now consider the following question: What does one do with a magnificently placed queen ? The variations given by Keene after 25...Qd3 as well as the sequel suggest a few initial answers to the ...
   Mar-29-15 Leko vs Kramnik, 2004
Ulhumbrus: One possible point of the choice of 26...Bxd4 instead of 26...cxd4 is as follows. Kramnik is going to transfers his king's bishop from the long diagonal a1-h8 to the diagonal e1-a5 from which the bishop both blockades White's a pawn and supports Black's passed pawn, so that this ...
   Mar-20-15 Kramnik vs Anand, 2008
Ulhumbrus: In the position after 23 gxf4 both of the kings seem exposed. However Black's bishop is placed powerfully on the long diagonal h1-a8 whereas White's bishop is doing little. Black is therefore playing with an extra bishop. During the rest of the game White does not manage to make
   Mar-18-15 Anand vs Carlsen, 2015
Ulhumbrus: After 21...Qe6 White has the bishop pair. If the group of three moves 22 f3, 23 Bh3 and 24 e4 is premature because it ends up exposing the a2 pawn to attack following the interception 25...Bb2 this suggests 21 Rd3 or 21 Qb3
   Mar-12-15 Marshall vs Lasker, 1900 (replies)
Ulhumbrus: <RookFile: <When Lasker played 11...Nxc3?? he must not have seen 15.c6! forcing the bishop to occupy a square needed by the knight, in order to answer Ne5.> The concept is fantastic, and that Marshall saw it is greatly to his credit.> To make the explanation a little ...
   Mar-12-15 Lasker vs H Lyman / K Lyman, 1938
Ulhumbrus: Interesting question: How would Lasker have done against Kramnik's Berlin wall?
   Mar-11-15 Capablanca vs Janowski, 1911
Ulhumbrus: Following the move 13...Be6 if White combines the pawn advance e4 with the capture Nxe6 this fractures Black's pawns, as in the game Capablanca vs Znosko-Borovsky, 1938
   Mar-03-15 Lasker vs Teichmann, 1909
Ulhumbrus: One question is why Lasker says that 14...f6 is premature and that Black should have played 14...Na5 first. Suppose that Black follows Lasker's suggestion and plays first 14...Na5 15 Bc2 and only then 15...f6. Then suppose that White proceeds as in the game by 16 h3 Bh5 17 g4. ...
   Mar-02-15 Teichmann vs Schlechter, 1911
Ulhumbrus: According to Edward Lasker Teichmann said that 24 Qg6!! was the move which Schlechter had overlooked: An immediate 24 Re3 would have allowed 24...g6 whereas after 24 Qg6 Black could not defend his second rank in that way.
   Mar-02-15 Teichmann vs Lasker, 1896
Ulhumbrus: 11...Qd7 is an eccentric looking move. As Lasker has played it this suggests without proving that an eccentric looking move can be the right move. The move is the first of a pair, a pair of which the second move is ...Qf5. The move 11...Qd7 prevents the move e6 which 11...Bd7 does
(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. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2015, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies