Vicariously-I (2200) vs rychessmaster1 (1700) Game Analysis

Basically all of your problems were related to giving up your light squared Bishop. This compromised your light squares and you weakened your light squares further by playing f5 and later f4.

Yes 15. f5 was the decisive error but you were going to have a tough time anyway because it's not easy for you to get counterplay.

Here's another game I played where my opponent also made the mistake of exchanging their Bishop for my Knight on c4. This game shows some of the ideas that I was intending to use in our game if you didn't go for f5.

First game: I liked 20 a6.

Yes that would have been more accurate. I mentioned this idea to undermine the Knight with a6 in the game so I'm not sure why I didn't play it when I had the chance.

I noticed that both of your opponents played a Botvinnik-style formation with Pawns on c5, d6 and e5, Knight on c6 and Bishop on g7.

In that formation, the King's Knight really belongs on e7, not on f6.

Yes that's true. That way if Black properly prepares f5 then he can play it without having to move the Knight out of the way.

More on the Botvinnik here:

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/greek-kia2

,,,disagree...

Did you not see the rest of the game? Black's position crumbled after f5.

Being a reckless attacking player, I have a little line, you may think absurd...

Post #39 of this thread:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/gm-larry-evans-method-of-static-analysis

... is an example of a somewhat more solid way to play the Botvinnik as Black.

There's a reason why it's called Frankenstein-Dracula Variation

Actually 16. ...Rxf5 isn't that bad for you

Ng5 and a6 still crushes it.

Ng5 Rxf2

(my idea is still to come)

Qd5+

You sure about this?

We've got both a smothered mate threat and also a threat of a6.

Yes. Sack the ex

That eval is more than a piece up.

Seems to me that if someone gives me 100$ to take the black side