Game this week between two student players:
The younger of the two (playing white) launched into a brilliant attack which led to the position above. Here, white can reach a solid endgame with 1. Nxf5+ which forces Qxf5 (or else mate) 2. Qxf5 gxf5 and once the white bishop retreats, white is up two pawns, with a supported outside passed pawn to boot.
However, white instead played 1. g4, looking to deflect the f5 bishop guarding against mate on g6. It looks like it should work, but black countered with 1. ..Be4 with the idea that if the bishop is taken with 2. dxe4 then Qxg4+ and the critical g6 square is still covered. White assumed (incorrectly) that black could get a perpetual from this check, declined to take the bishop, and lost from the ensuing complications.
Does white have a finish from here, and if so is 1. g4 the beginning of it? Or is the simplification outlined above the best play?
Stockfish says g4 is much better than the simplification play. It gives g4 a + 7.25 evaluation versus only a +2.5 evaluation for 1. Nxf5+.
Maybe you don't have the little computer analysis icon as a basic member.
Game this week between two student players:
The younger of the two (playing white) launched into a brilliant attack which led to the position above. Here, white can reach a solid endgame with 1. Nxf5+ which forces Qxf5 (or else mate) 2. Qxf5 gxf5 and once the white bishop retreats, white is up two pawns, with a supported outside passed pawn to boot.
However, white instead played 1. g4, looking to deflect the f5 bishop guarding against mate on g6. It looks like it should work, but black countered with 1. ..Be4 with the idea that if the bishop is taken with 2. dxe4 then Qxg4+ and the critical g6 square is still covered. White assumed (incorrectly) that black could get a perpetual from this check, declined to take the bishop, and lost from the ensuing complications.
Does white have a finish from here, and if so is 1. g4 the beginning of it? Or is the simplification outlined above the best play?