It gives up material (bishop takes rook) so I guess that's why it might be "brilliant"
I suppose the engine says White is better because the queenside pawns compensate for losing the exchange.
I suppose white isn't ahead after an alternative move like Rb1 because the dark squares give black enough compensation for the pawn deficit.
The difference between 15.b3 and 15.Rb1 is very small. Both moves result in a roughly equal position.
One of the reasons it's not too uncomfortable to give up an exchange is that there are no open files, so even though black has two rooks they can't find much activity.
Just one more question. If that rook wasn't very active due to the pawn structure, why trading it for a good bishop was the best move for black according to Stockfish?
Just one more question. If that rook wasn't very active due to the pawn structure, why trading it for a good bishop was the best move for black according to Stockfish?
That's a good question. I checked with the engine and 15...Bxa1 is only slightly better than 15...Bc3
The main thing IMO is that black is two pawns down. It's easier to have compensation in the form of a bishop for a rook than it is compensation in the form of dark square control.
And while it's true that no open files makes rooks less powerful, it's the nature of chess games that some files will open up later. For that reason rooks tend to become better the longer the game goes on. Instead of that, if black keeps the bishop, black's blockade of white's pawns on the dark squares isn't necessarily permanent, so isn't as trustworthy as having the rooks.
Of course in different positions the judgement may be different, which is what makes chess so interesting. Sometimes opposite color bishops leads to big attacking chances for example. But anyway, those are some of the ideas at play here.
Thank you for the explanation. However, I tried to analyze your puzzle and it said it was only the best move... It's strange how computer evaluates moves
I bet white had no idea what he was doing and accidentally played a brilliant move
NervesofButter covered it in detail, but the short answer is that White is giving up material (an exchange) to gain a rather large positional advantage (connected mobile pawn majority on the queenside and Black leaves himself with dark square weaknesses around his king).
The game analysis doesn't do a good job of explaining this move because it is a rather deep strategic idea (not a tactical one). Suppose all the like pieces are traded off (but no pawns). Black would have a rook for a bishop and 2 pawns, but having to contend with the 4-on-1 pawn majority on the queenside, meaning this would be a worse endgame (if not losing) for Black. With queens and rooks still on the board, it is even worse for Black because White can make threats on both sides of the board and Black always has to worry about runaway pawns.
White can't defend the pawns and black has a very active position. White isn't properly developed yet .... no activity. White is going to lose at least one pawn and black will still have pressure and looking at the position I believe that white is more likely to win with the pawns intact and an exchange down. Black has better chances if white doesn't play b3. I don't believe that white is winning after b3. It just gives white better chances than other moves.
Black is two pawns down, but there is no good way to protect the b2 pawn- and then white will have some pawn weaknesses, PLUS opposite-colored bishops, which give great drawing chances, despite the pawn minus.
1.b3!? is an interesting move, which offers the exchange to save the two extra pawns, PLUS getting rid of the opposite-colored bishops.
Honestly, if I was Black I would be tempted to NOT accept the gift and play 1.b3 Bc3! with a very good blockade of white's queenside pawns.
A thorough analysis may go very far, but instictively I think Black is not worse after 1...Bc3.
Keeping a " queen " by advancing the pawn and sacking an exchange where the bishop is worth more than usual ( opposite coloured bishops decrease winning chances in the endgame significantly ) and the ruhk on a1 isn't doin all that much.. besides blacks dark squared bishop is keeping it's monarch safe around it's weakened dark squares..
I wouldn't even take that ruhk if I had black
I probably would've done the good sportsmanship like thing and resigned understanding that black cannot save himself in that position
i am guessing its due to the long term positional grind and good bishop but again engines weird
Dont get caught up in all the brilliant moves and stuff. That does nothing to improve your game.
Use an engine to check for blunders and missed tactics. But obviously if you have a question like this one? Then please ask. Like i said. Just dont go overboard with all that brilliant move stuff.
Ok thanks for the advice
Why is this a brilliant move? And why does this move keep white slightly advantaged? And, above all, why is this the only winning move according to Stockfish?