Jul-23-04 Kasparov vs N McDonald, 1986 
|
socrates: <Chesspatch> what if Rxg3+ Kh4??? Well?? Well?! Ok, check this out: if 54...Rxg3+ 55.Kh4, black then plays Rg4+! Now white must take the rook or else simply drop the bishop and be down a rook and losing. After 56.Kxg4, black plays the cunning Qd7+! forcing the stalemate ... |
|
|
|
Mar-24-04 Lilienthal vs Tolush, 1947 
|
socrates: <karlzen and DWINS> I disagree completely. If black plays 34...Bxb5 35.cxb5 Kf6, then white simply plays 36.a4, followed by 37.a5, and then begins to centralize his king. Black gets to the middle first, but that is irrelevant, since his king can't stray or accompany an ... |
|
|
|
Mar-04-04 Kotov vs Botvinnik, 1939 
|
socrates: Bxg2 doesn't work either way. On 37...Bxg2+, 38. Kh2 and black has to settle for being two pawns up with the opposite color bishops. On 38...Bxg2+ (presumably after 37...Qxg2+ 38. Qxg2), 39. Rxg2 leaves black down the bishop for two pawns. |
|
|
|
Feb-29-04 H Ree vs J Mestel, 1983 
|
socrates: What about just playing 21...c3!? immediately, threatening the rook, the b2 pawn, and the family fork with Nc4? |
|
|
|
Feb-13-04 Keene vs E Mortensen, 1983 
|
socrates: <Sneaky> If 45...Rh7, I think I prefer 46.Rh1 staying with the same deflection theme! |
|
|
|
Jan-13-04 G Mohr vs B Bratovic, 2002 
|
socrates: 41.Rxd2 wins easily?! Care to share that analysis, or have you been studying with druknknight? |
|
|
|
indicates a reply to the comment. |
|