Time to think!

Given the amount of times I run out of time in 15 | 10, or feel forced to move more quickly than I like, I've decided to move to 45 | 45. The following game makes me think this was a good decision, with half the number of blunders & mistakes from a computer analysis. I'm not sure, in every case, why the computer declared my moves a mistake, so any pointers would be greatly appreciated.

I'd highly recommend 45 | 45 to any other beginners who are feeling time strain!

What computer are you using? Some of the comp analysis doesn't look right.

Lets look at the question moves in order:

8. Qd3 (mistake, comp likes Bc4)

A mistake but not because of your reasons. A move that is almost as good as Bc4 is Qb3!, which does exactly the same thing as Qd3 but also looks at f7 at the same time! It is easy to see the queen is better there.

After Qb3 black is almost forced to BxB (f7 is almost not defensible otherwise) which is very good for white. The computer does want BxB with advantage but In the game notice black did not need to play it due to the inaccurate queen.

9. Bc4 was not a mistake. You probably got confused with the lines.

11. Bf4? was a blunder. You didn't mention it in your analysis. Ng5 and Qf3 threats against f7 is winning as black either lose a piece or severely weakens structure and face mate threats.

20. Rfe1?! was an inaccuracy. Not much of one in my opinion.

22. Bd3?! inaccuracy, but my engine did not give Rab1 as best. My engine likes h4 best, and then we have about equal weight e5, Rac1 and Rab1 (the eval jumps back and forth). Anyways the black bishop is not threatening much on a6 so Bd3 just trades a good bishop with a bad one unnecessarily and the mentioned moves put more pressure on black.

26. e5?! inaccuracy, but your comp recommendation dxc5 was nowhere to be found and not even one of the candidate moves. Red1! is best and very sensible move.

33. a6? mistake. This one is obvious as the c-pawn is lost with Rxc5, which you should have protected.

I'm using the lichess.org web version for analysis. Here's the entire analysis:

Thanks for the feedback wrathss. The computer did pick out Bf4 as a mistake. Would you have played Ng5 automatically? It goes against beginner's opening principles of "develop each piece before moving a piece twice", which is why I played Bf4.

(As you point out Bc4 was not a mistake... I confused it with Bf4...)

Is it simply that the pattern  demands Ng5. Is a "higher general principle" that "if you can attack f7 with another piece do it!" Or do I have to somehow gain the ability to see nine moves ahead (!)

As my engine shows, black has defensive moves 11. ..d5 12. ..a4 and it takes nine moves before white is shown to be dominant. It also involves a Knight sacrifice and a fancy Q tactic to capture the rook. This was beyond my tactical horizon. (Maybe I need to try to extend it, I still had twenty minutes left at the end... so I have time...)

My thought with 22. Bd3?! was to clear a path for my passed pawn and tie up his pieces trying to stop it. My plan did ultimately work. In fact he was using three pices to block three passed pawns by move 33!

But as you point out in 33. a6 I did then hang one of them... my mind was totally focused on pushing the original passed pawn & it was well past my dinner time so I was rushing a bit 

You say I swopped a good bishop for bad, but in "my world" his bishop was good because it was blocking my passed pawn.

Thanks again wrathss, all useful food for thought.

In general you do want to avoid moving the same piece twice in the opening, but here are two reasons why 11. Ng5 would be natural:

1. The idea of not moving the same piece twice is a very good opening principle. However we are at move 11 here and if you consider the number of pieces on the board it is actually quite normal to move some piece again. Lets say in some opening with no trading you made 4 pawn moves and 6 piece moves. That means you would have moved almost all your pieces once already so on move 11 you are back to the top of the order per say.

Your knight went to f3 on move 2 and I don't really consider it "moving it twice" when you move it on move 11, as you haven't moved it for quite a while. Also notice you did move your bishop 3 or 4 times and while thats forced I don't see you worrying about that.

2. Ng5 does threaten f7 which black has no comfortable way to stop. It takes a bit of calculation to get the lines right, but a good player can tell by experience that Ng5 is the correct move with a big advantage. Perhaps a piece sac is needed but white will breakthrough and either get the mate or win back material with interest.

You don't have to follow the comp. suggestion or have a big tactical horizon as you just needed to play active moves for a nice advantage and basically all lines are good:

A reasonable line after 11. Ng5! d5 12. exd5 a4 13. Qf3! (threatening mate, or you can play the much safer Bd1 which also keeps a sizable advantage) f6, and here you can either sac a piece with 14. Bc2! fxg5 15. Bxg5 and white has an overwhelming position (black's king has nowhere to go and all the pieces are tangled), or the move complicated 15. d6! which is also good.

------------------------

22. Bd3?!

Well first I have to say black really made a heck of a bad defense as there is no way that white should have 3 passed pawns. With reasonable play white keeps the outside passed pawn as the advantage.

Here is a time when you have to weight the pros and cons of different theories. You are up a pawn and there is the theory that you want to trade down to an endgame when your passed pawn is most powerful. At the same time, we also have a theory that white has better pieces and significantly more space and trading pieces help the defender.

With all 7 pieces on the board the passed pawn is as insignificant as it can be. If you go down some computer lines you will see that the comp does not do anything to the blockading pieces (as they are not anchored there and cannot stay there forever) and NEVER push the pawn (as pushing the pawn further makes it harder to protect). Instead the comp will use the advantage in space and pieces to force black into other concessions and get to an even more favorable endgame.

As you know the principle of "two weaknesses", just working the passed pawn might not be enough for a win.