TL Chess Match 4 - Page 112

20...c5 seems to work pretty well against it

we'll necessarily be able to play Ne3 down the line.

22...Re1+ 23. Kg2 Bxd2.

I dont see the reason of doing Rb1. It does absolutely nothing of importances. It doesnt solve our current problem and that is that our knight is trapping out bishop and keeping everyone on the left pinned. If you were to do it, it would just be sitting there doing nothing and wasted a tempo.

Opens up the bishop and keep pressure on the center and the possibility of doing Ne5. Also protect e1.

It not a bad alternative but it seems kinda passive. You can do Ne3 afterward but then he could do Bd6 and the e8 rook will pinned us. This will also mean that our bishop will once again....be trap....kinda but it does limit it mobility.

We can always play our knight to g3 instead of e3. This has the advantage that the knight can still go to f5, or it can also go to h5 where it threatens the pawn on f6 and also potentially forks the king and rook. This way we don't block the e-file. Playing Nf3 seems ok, but after that the knight isn't going anywhere without a bunch of intermediate moves, and it's also blocking the advance of our kingside pawns.

Nf1 is the move with options.

The main threat I think would be from 20...Rb3, since I'm not that keen to put the knight back on d2 like in my other line, but we may also be able to play Ne3 here, which may be a better way of keeping our pieces free.

e.g. 20.Nf1 Rb3 21.Ne3 c6 (21...Rd3 22.Nxd5 Rxd4 23.Nxe7 Rxe7 24.Be3 looks great for white) 22.Nf5 (this is similar to some of the lines I've posted previously) 22...Bf8 (22...Bd8 23.Rxe8 Kxe8 24.Bd2 Rd3 25.Bb4) 23.Rxe8 Kxe8 and then we might start pushing our kingside pawns 24.h3

20. Nf1 Rb3

Not sure moving the knight here is a good idea here, but I feel we could really use our bishop to generate some offense. Hope this move is not bad, but i can't find a better move right now.

Rethought my move; wider zone of control by knight on e3 and no other moves urgently needed by white.

20. Nf1 I believe will have problem with 20... c5, where pawn exchange will be forced and black get a good pass pawn with bishops to support it's advance. I think our 2 pawns on the a file will take no further role in this game unless we can trade our knight for the white bishop, which I don't see happening. Therefore our material advantage is not as great as it looks.

20... c5 is weak as the logical response is to develop the bishop. Black profits little from such an exchange of pawns, as it loses the ability to support the d pawn and White's isolated pawn is less valuable by definition.

Nf3 feels much more direct, faster. It guards both our center and our rook, effectively developing the knight with one less move than Nf1.

As others have pointed out, there are some small problems with Nf1-Ne3. It block in our bishop once again, and it opens the possibility for the rook pin, which can be very annoying in a couple lines I've been looking at. We could alternatively play Nf1-Ng3, but the knight seems much less useful there than the immediate Nf3.

In the lines where black plays a quick c5, it seems better to have a knight on f3, giving us the option of either defending our pawn or trading it away, instead of forcing a trade.

I know these arguments are kind of vague, which is why I've been having trouble recently picking my moves, and therefore I haven't been offering as much analysis as I used to because I'm simply not as convinced what the best move it. I'll just say that Nf3 feels more solid here.

20. Nf3 immediately yields more central control, protecting both d4 and e1, not exposing to possible capture by Ba6 and finally, isn't it a perfect position for a Knight in front of his castled King?

On the other hand, the plan Nf1-g3-f5 provides us a permanent Knight on agressive square... Connecting it with moves like Bf4 and Rac1, pressuring weak pawn, it might realistically be better.

Nf3-h4-f5