TL Chess Match 4 - Page 106

20. ... Rxd2 21. Bxa5 Rb5, and here we will get into some problems with our bishop. Bc3? Rb3 wins back a pawn. Bd2? Rc3 and black will likely win the a-pawn now. If a5? Rd3 wins the d-pawn.

There might be some improvements here that I'm not seeing, but overall I think Rxb2 is the stronger move for black.

What do we do when he plays a5? Take? He just slides his rook over and gets it back as well as having a well developed rook once he takes it.

Our problem is piece development.

I propose Nf3 followed by b4. a5 will lose out to bxa5 as we can then play Bd2 to defend our a5 pawn incase he wants to play ra8.

After 18. Nf3 a5, we can't follow with b4 unless we want to lose a pawn.

(18. Nf1 a5 19. Ne3 c6 20. Bd2) ...a4

This is the thematic bind that we've been talking about, isn't it? Black threatens the b2 pawn, which is more or less permanently immobilized because of the threat of ...Pxb3 after b3 or b4. Black can increase the pressure at will by doubling Rooks on the b-file, and he can easily dislodge defenders from a2 or b1 with his light-squared Bishop.

The practical upshot of this, as far as I can see, is that unless we want to give up the pawn which basically consists of our solitary advantage in this game, then at least one of our minor pieces is doomed to the passive, static role of guarding the pawn, and I can't see how we're supposed to make progress in the position if Black can use all his pieces, and we can't use one of ours.

It's true that on c3, the Bishop occupies a somewhat better square than it did on c1, which perhaps is why you like this better than other lines that featured ...a5-...a4, but I can't see how that ultimately makes a practical difference. A Bishop that can't move is a Bishop that's practically useless, offensively speaking, regardless of which square it is glued to.

For example, the plan with b3 is to leave the knight on d2 and play Bb2, however b2 is definitely not the best square for the bishop (much better is d2 or even f4, which the knight would be blocking us from playing). Even playing Bb2-c3 is kinda slow, and the bishop would have a lot more scope on d2 anyway.

Also I remember qrs (I think) saying that the knight is good on d2, as it can jump to many potentially useful squares, however the problem is it needs to defend the pawn on b3, so the knight is basically useless until we can play b4, even moreso since it hinders our bishop from reaching its best squares. I find that looking at lines where we play b3 just makes me wish we would play b4 instead haha.

e.g. the latest analysis of b3 goes 18.b3 Bd6 but already I don't think that black will play Bd6 here for the same reason that qrs pointed out my 20.Bd6 I gave in my initial analysis wasn't the best.
Black will probably want to connect rooks so I think it would go something more like:
18.b3 Ba6 19.Bb2 (it's the plan...) Bd6 and then what? Exchanging rooks just concedes the e-file to black and I feel we need to remove our weakness on b3 so (wait for it) 20.b4

people seem to think that after 18.b4 a5 19.bxa5 we have trouble defending that pawn, however from the lines I've seen it is black that is having trouble trying to capture the pawn, which we can surrender at an opportune moment anyway.

e.g.


This is the kind of thing we don't even care about, because if black is taking the time to do this then we have 18.b4 a5 19.bxa5 Rb5 20.a4 Rxa5 21.Nb3 and we are still up a pawn and have the initiative which we should be able to convert into a winning position.

One thing that I've noticed in my analysis is that b2 isn't a great square for the bishop, so I'm liking the idea of playing b4 Nf1 even if black responds 18.b4 Ba6. I have a feeling that black won't be so willing to go along with 18.b4 a5 19.bxa5 since he has trouble regaining the pawn in the lines I've seen, and also because he needs to connect his rooks to prevent Rxe8 Kxe8 ideas.

I feel that blacks pressure on the b-file is justified if we put the pawn on b3 and the bishop on b2, hence we should aim to play b4 to remove the b2 weakness, shift our knight to the kingside via Nf1 and place our bishop on a good square (d2 or even better f4)

greggy's board convinced me. This move opens up a lot of options for our pieces especially for our bishop.

Obviously when we deal with [the threat of Rxe1#] in whatever way we choose we should do it in the best way possible

In that position we can play 23.Bf4 which develops our bishop, attacks the Rb8 and also connects our rooks. Now black has a lot of threats to deal with 23...Rxe1+ 24.Rxe1 and I can't really find a good move for black here since we threaten Re6+ again (after we play h3 or g3 to prevent further back rank mate threats).

e.g. 24...Rb3 25.h3 Kd7 (25...Rxa3? 26.Re6+)

diagram

I didn't say that the Knight can jump to many potentially useful squares but that it "controls" a number of useful squares (link). The difference is that the Knight doesn't have to move to those squares to be useful; it just has to cover them. For instance, by covering b1, it supports a potential Rb1 if the b-file gets opened in the future (this applies to b4 lines as well, but not to lines where we move the Knight from d2). By covering c4 [I originally wrote c5, but I meant c4], it helps to weaken the force of any possible future ...c4, as well as discouraging a move like ...Bc5 if we ever move the pawn from b3.

To be sure, these defensive possibilities aren't direct arguments against b4, as, if anything, they are even more relevant to those lines than to the b3 lines. However, they are arguments for why the Knight accomplishes useful things on d2 and why it's therefore not bad for us to leave it there. Yes, it's a defensive piece, but it's a good defensive piece.

I see positional problems in each variation :/ b3, Nf1 and b4 suffer piece movement restrictions (although thanks to JD, I like b4 slightly more than I originally did). Nb1 I looked at a bit more thoroughly and it is just too slow. Same for Nf1, although honestly I didn't mind Qrs's line with g3. So I really don't know, and therefore I abstain.