It's the Best Supporting Actor that you Have to Worry About ...
I'd like to share a flaw I found in my Chess thinking.
It's where we become so focused on the lead actors (like the Queen) that we fail to consider possibilities of the supporting actors.
I was on the White side of a Sicilian Richter-Rauzer where I reached the following position.
Does White have a Decisive Advantage?
I had sacrificed a Knight on d5 to reach this position which I had assessed and calculated as completely winning for White.
I played 20. e6 which both clears the 5th rank for the Queen to h5 (ganging up on h7 with the Bishop), but also takes away the f7 square from Black's Rook to defend h7.
I had only considered 20. ... Bc6 attacking my Queen and skewering my Rook, but after 21. Qh5 Black can resign for there is no way to defend h7.
But what did both my opponent and I miss for Black?
The Supporting Actor
Both my opponent and I failed to see that 20. ... Bb5 diffuses White's attack. A discovered attack is made on White's Queen whilst simulataneously attack the Bishop.
Should White move his Queen to h5, Black exchanges the Bishop at d3, which was necessary for the attack at h7.
Appears so logical. To me, it showed a flaw in my Chess thinking, as we are often focused on the "lead actor" (the Queen) rather than the supporting roles.
If you take out the guy driving the GetAway Car, you'll be able to stop the robbery.
My Game Annotations and Analysis