1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct

Incidentally, I disagree with <Domdaniel>. Allowing so simple a mate strikes me as a way of resigning in a hopeless position while allowing one's opponent the glory of a pretty combination. Surely so strong a player is unlikely simply to have overlooked it.

In a G/90 game against a 2150ish player 14 years ago, much the same situation arose. I don't think my opponent overlooked the mate (which used exactly the same mating pattern); he allowed it to happen because the alternative was mere torture.

That bishop, staring balefully across the county line, could never have left Uhlmann's mind in such a situation. I suppose it's conceivable that he focused so intently on the ...Nf3† threat that he forgot that the knight could also go to h3, but this too seems unlikely.

To me his move spoke in clear tones of the old sportsmanship, most prevalent in the 19th century, when players who found themselves lost after a brilliancy would on purpose permit the intended victory in its most dramatic and picturesque form as a sort of tribute to their opponent's ingenuity: a matter of noblesse oblige.

That, at least, is what I like to think Uhlmann did here.

I suppose those entertaining that idea also have images of an Uhlmann sitting and smiling over the fact that his opponent gave away his queen by mistake.

https://www.365chess.com/game.php?g... so does Megabase.

But Informator 21 (game 66) clearly has it played out to the 27...Nh3 checkmate.

So the debate continues with an extra option added in.

(personally I would have dropped the !! on move 25...Rxd2 because the Ng5 idea would have been seen by then and 26.Qxd2 Qf3 was the smoke screen making White think that was the only threat.)