Analysing My Own Games: Playing on Both Sides of the Board
Some losses are so painful to go through.
I'm not talking about the ones where you lose in under 20 moves, nor the ones where you were completely outplayed nor the ones where you blunder a piece.
I'm talking about the ones where all game you build small advantages: obtain more space, make his pieces passive, total control and domination of the centre and both flanks only to throw it away in one move.
Playing White in the above position I have obtained winning advantages ... my Bishop on d6 cuts the opponent in two, I have made his Knight on h7 become totally out of play, his King is shut out on the edge of the board, my Rook is bearing down ready to advance with b5, his heavy pieces are entirely passive.
Black has just played Qe8 to d8. During the game I felt extremely comfortable, lulled by how passive my opponent was (often a sign of danger looming). I had thought his threat was to play Qb6 or Qh4. To that end, I wanted to prevent him from both, and so played Qf2. I had totally missed my opponent's intentions
I had seen the move c5, but didn't know how to follow up after Ka7. GM Bojkov showed me the idea Rg3 not so much to threaten the g7 pawn with tempo, but to clear the way for the a-pawn to advance. The Rxg7 tactic would have been very beautiful to play.
This taught me a lot. It showed me how I don't consider playing on both sides of the board. I was entirely fixated on the Queenside attack, I never considered opportunities to combine that with weakness on the Kingside (g7). This was a hallmark of Alekhine's play.