Hi,

Having posted a position that puzzled me once before with good results, I call once again upon the analytical talent on this forum.

I have been playing some OTB tournaments with rather bismal results. Let's just say I have more of an "analytical" than a "fighter" personality. In one game from my last tournament I had what I thought, and my opponent agreed after the game, was a pretty advantageos position with the white pieces in a Sicilian with 3.Bb5+. On a side note here I feel the need to mention that I usually don't play that drawish nonsense, but my opponent is a feared dragon specialist who knows every game played in the opening after 1960 by heart and plays it at grandmaster strength, so I had to diverge from repertoire. Anyway, here goes:

I went on to lose this game after several more hours of hard and sloppy work, but that's another story. What interests me at the moment is the evaluation of this position. What's going on here:

Is white really better, and how would you continue - what is the right plan?

Is it ok to let black exchange his bishop for the knight? (Can white then exploit the weakened dark squares?)

Many thanks in advance for all responses.

I thought all positions were positional. :)

22. Nb5 (double attack on a7-pawn and d3-bishop) d4 23. NxB pxN 24. Rc2 and then pile on the isolated pawn. Best I can come up with.

I didn't like your pawn play giving your opponent a passed pawn and blocking the operations of your bishop - it would be easier to exploit Black's dark squares if the e5 and f4-pawns weren't in the way, although they do restrict the knight.

The final position looks pretty close to even. White may have a tiny edge, but that's all. Going back a bit, I wonder if Black had slightly better with 20...Ba3, but it still looks pretty even

Thanks for the input!

b1:  Maybe you liked Bg5? (after e5?) I considered it for a long time, but I'm sure black has no problems after f6, and it's even possible to give up the exchange for the e5 pawn, great control of the center and a potentially very strong bishop. I thought e5 and f4 gives black more to think about - it's harder for black to find good places for his light pieces.

The game continued as you suggest - but it turns out the pawn is rather hard to win. Many interesting positions can occur where after exchanging queens white and black are tied down to the defense of this pawn and everything depends on what can be done with the a- and b-pawns. Very hard to evaluate. However, in the game, I managed to get a completely winning position by trapping the dominated knight after allowing doubled rooks on the 2nd rank, and later I misplayed the endgame and lost the whole point! (I'm the kind of person who can forget to close the fridge and leave it open half a day, entering the kitchen several times - and this trait seems to come out in my chess whenever I get agitated or tired).

paul:

Thank for posting - but please spoon-feed me. What exactly do you think gives white a small plus, and what is the correct or most promising way to continue?

In the game, I probably chose the wrong path as I failed to correctly evaluate the position after Nb4 d4 Nxc3 dxc3 which is retrospect is probably equal. As I have already hinted, I like g4 - what do you think about this?

The idea is obviously to add to the threat of a possible kingside attack. If black chooses to exchange on d4, I think white just stands clearly better. The bishop is far from dead, has great attacking potential and will also be very effective in guarding against any queenside operation by black. Black has problems with the knight which will now be a failure on g7 and needs to be relocated via c7. The exchange of one rook is inevitable (ideally I'd move this rook and postpone g4, but it has nowhere practical to go, so avoiding its exchange loses too many tempi), but white should still have all the chances.

Please help me out if this thinking is flawed in some way, or give alternaltive plans for white. Can white create play with the pawns on the queenside?

I think you took the right path. I think e5 and f4 are better than Bg5. His bishop had to come the long way around because of them. I didn't like those pawns on e5 and f4 from the perspective of the position after move 21, but it makes sense from the perspective of restricting his g7-bishop, before move 21.

The pawn is hard to take (I did not calculate that far), but no-one ever said chess is easy. It turns out that taking the pawn hinges on getting your bishop into position to help with the capture, either by 25. Rd1, there by controlling the d-file for the bishop to go to d4, or via getting your bishop to e1 (advice provided by Fritz 5.32). Did you play 25. Rc1? I would have done the same.

I'm not surprised that the conversion of your queenside pawn majority played a major part in the rest of the endgame.