The moves we play reflect what we see ... or is it what we know? Ultimately, does it reflect how we think about the game, our perception and the way we process what's given in front of us.
I reached the following position as White in a Grunfeld, where I had a sense that the tide was turning my way.
White to Move
As Chess players we are conditioned to want more. To gain time. To gain material. My opponent had just played 33. ... Rxf4 and pretty much the only move I considered (and ultimately played) was 34. Ke5 which gains a tempo on the Rook, improves my King position and prepares a4. I'm invading, I'm gaining something.
Fritz pointed out in post mortem a very powerful move in 34. Rh1!! At first I looked at it, trying to figure out why. Is it to invade on the 8th rank with the h-Rook.
Then I could see, the Silicon Beast is taking the h-file away from the Black Rook. More so, White is threatening Ke3 which traps the Rook. And the Rook needs to guard g4, for White will otherwise play Bg4 exploiting the pin on the Black Bishop.
In part, this highlighted my perception in Chess. Rather than thinking of what a move could give me, I am weak at thinking what a move does to take away from my opponent. I take away his activity.
Here my opponent has just played 35. ... Rh2 which loses instantly to 36. Rxd7+ followed by a skewer.
My Game Annotation and Analysis