Answering questions

 Robert said:

1. 
   

2. PART I:
   
   This is my “stream of consciousness” review of your first game. I’m not criticizing your play; just trying to figure out what was going on in your mind as you played. My interest is in trying to see (if possible) potential deficits in knowledge/skill that we may share. I have never played this opening with White, generally preferring a more traditional Queen’s Gambit approach with the potential to attack on the queenside with a minority attack rather than a piece/pawn attack on the kingside.
   
   I have no idea how far into the opening you had studied/memorized this variation, but it seems you had a better feel for it than your opponent. After move 3 I was out of book

3. 
   
   In this first game, Black’s plan (7...Nh5; 8...Nxf4) to exchange off the WBf4, doubling White’s f-pawns (and also opening the e-file for White and creating a pawn break on f5) seems dubious to me because White has completed development and is prepared to begin active operations. Back still has to get his king out of the center and his queenside piece development has far lagged behind. Playing 9...c5 seems foolhardy under the circumstances. You rightly saw the possibility of cranking open the e-file with 10.f5. After 10...Nf6 11. Bb5+ you saw the tactical possibility of gaining a pawn with attacking chances on the kingside. After 11...Bd2 12. fxe6 fxe6 it appears that you immediately went for the pawn gain. I assume you mean 11. ... Bd7. No pawn gain was on my mind. I wanted to pry open the e-file and to prevent him from castling
   
   I’m curious: I know you like attacking play and I know you can SEE the outline of the potential tactics in this position. Why did you reject 13. Ng5? It appears to give you the extra pawn AND to also get your knight into e6 (the ‘octopus knight”!) with tempo. You would have had an even stronger initiative as a result. Does GM Smirnov’s “To take is a mistake!” aphorism apply? I wanted to put pressure on Be7 as soon as possible. I have two rooks and a queen ready for that. It was hard to judge the details. Maybe saccing the exchange was in the air.
   
   This s one of the areas I have been working on (and still need to work on) – rather than striving to gain material at the first opportunity, perhaps deferring the material gain (or foregoing it altogether) in favor of increased piece activity and complications (i.e., tactical threats that put the pieces in more active positions).
   
   Black appears to be setting up for a potential raid on h2 after 16...Qc7. The WNf3 might be captured by the BRf8, with a strong attack of queen and knight against your king. Why capture on c5? It brings Black’s queen to a stronger position in the center, and does not improve your piece positions. It does. It makes d3 a save place for my queen and gives d4 to my knight. Why not try to get the White queen off the 1st rank (perhaps d3) and bring the a8 rook into the action on either the d-file or e-file, putting immediate pressure on the IQP? As GM Aagaard says, bring ALL of the pieces to the party when you are attacking!
   
   Why did you immediately play 17. Nd4? It threatens a knight fork and the defender of Be7 (the black queen) Were you already looking at 18.Ne6, to be followed with an exchange of queens by playing 19.Qd4? Did you consider a plan of getting the queen off the 1st rank (17.Qd3) followed by developing the a8-rook as needed to increase pressure on d5 or e7? It appears that you were applying “one piece at a time” thinking, rather than trying to coordinate ALL of your pieces toward potential targets (a frequent failing of mine). I missed the deadly move 18. a3. Pawn b2 is poisoned, winning the queen, Qc5 allows to win the exchange and other queen moves lose the bishop.
   
   Black’s 18...Rf7 appears to be a mistake. With 19.Ng5, White gains a strong attack because his pieces are very well coordinated. The BRf7 and BBe7 are targets, and the BRa8 is doing nothing. I started having “fantasies” of things like grabbing the BBe7 (if the Black rook reverts to f8 and/or the Black queen takes on b2) and also a potential classic smothered mate pattern (WN takes on d5, BN takes back, WQ takes with check, BK moves to h8, WN goes to f7 with check. Black would probably give up the exchange and take the knight, rather than permit the smothered mate with BK to g8, WN to h6++, BK to h8, WQ to g8+, BRxg8, WN to f7 mate). Somewhere in there I would have to figure out what to do about the a1-rook (under attack if Black captures on b2 and the WQ is on f7), but it certainly looks more promising than Black’s possibilities.

4. PART II:
   
   I did not understand your decision to trade queens and go into an endgame, even though you are a pawn ahead at the moment. Neither did I. So far I was totally winning. Yet one silly move shouldn't be losing. Here a hole in my bucket shows. If I can't come up with a plan, I start to use time and to make mistakes. The rest is irrelevant, since I must first absorb a few standard endgame plans. You lost the initiative and Black ruined your pawn structure in short order, enabling him to regain his material with interest. Did you assume that getting rid of the queens made it easier to win the IQP? The classical method for capturing the IQP requires the major pieces (and that c3 pawn assassin). Black is able to force doubled c-pawns (because of the combined threat against your rook on e3 and the f2-pawn, which is more than adequate compensation for the pawn minus and the IQP (which can no longer be won using the classical plan).
   
   Assessing the position after 24...Rc8, I think Black has the advantage of better pawn structure. Both sides have three pawn islands but Black’s IQP is easily protected with the BN and the two connected queenside pawns are better structurally than the isolated a-pawn and the double c-pawns. White’s 3:2 majority on the kingside will not be a factor until very late in a pawn endgame, if at all.
   
   After 29...Nxc3, the primary consideration is that a knight and pawn endgame should be played essentially as if it is a pawn ending (Botvinnik’s “rule”). It is crucial is to get the king to the center of the board ASAP. I’m doubtful that it would hold the draw, but at least it’s a chance. Trying to advance the 3:2 kingside majority to create a passed pawn is too slow in light of the advanced b-pawn; it merely weakens the pawns for when the Black king comes calling. Perhaps a better way would be to try to get the White king in front of the b-pawn, trying to keep the Black king tied to its defense, freeing up the night to shepherd the kingside pawns forward. However, if the knights can be forced off, then the “fox in the chicken house” strategy works: White is forced to spend time going after the b-pawn, while the Black king is free to raid the kingside pawns.
   
   I look forward to your critique of my thoughts! Thank you!!

5. That I missed the tactical win? No worries, I'm working on that. That my attack was a bit suboptimal? No worries, I'm studying the art of attack.

6. But the lack of an endgame strategy is a serious hole in my bucket. And it is placed low, every player above 1850 escapes trough it. So I must plug this before anything else. I don't like it, but I have to.

7. In general, I use the following criterium: when I start to use time and cannot come up with a plan: there is a hole in my bucket, and if it occurs frequently I must plug it before anything else. But it takes time and energy to shift plans often.