We were both under heavy time pressure after 29. N35 with 40 seconds at most for both of us, so I don't really care what happens past move 29. Obviously he blundered on 30: Bxe5 but time was of the essence at this point and our performance took an analytical nose dive after move 29.
14...Rc8 15: Ba1 c5 16:Qb1 c4???
Sort:
To answer your first question:
I don't think it was worth it to keep the bishop-queen battery and let black gain that much counterplay on the queenside. Your threat isn't real until you can force the knight on f6 to move, until then it's more of an inconvenience than a threat for black. After 14... Rc8, 15. f5 was strong, aiming to saddle him with a weak pawn on e6, and if exf5 then Nh4 winning back the pawn and now with a well placed knight and an open f file for your rook. Ba3 and Qc3 wastes time, in the hope that black will just blunder the game away.
To answer your second question:
Yes, black would've done better to play cxb4, and after axb4, Nc6 targeting the b pawn which is now hard to defend for white.
A couple other things:
- At move 23. Nxf6+ was strong, black has to take with the g pawn because if Bxf6 then Rxg7+. I bet your opponent saw this because they play Rg8 next move.
- At move 26. Nf2 was the better way to attack the pinned knight, because f5 can be met with Rxg7+ made possible because the queen remained on the a1-h8 diagonal.
The first question I have is whether or not it was worth two tempos to maintain my checkmate threat on Qxg7 by pinning his knight with bishop queen. My second question is if black would have been better off playing 16: xb4 to expose c file.
I played 15: Ba1 anticipating c5 after his Rc8, I thought his goal was to force my queen off the diagonal. That's why 16: c4 confused me, even I used two tempos to remain on the diagonal.