Help about strategic decision

Hello!

I have a question about a strategic decision in correspondence game I have just finished.

I haven't got the time to properly analise the game, but I'm burning to hear some opinions. 

So, after losing a piece for two pawns, my opponent started to exchange pieces and I concluded that he will base his strategy around pushing two connected passed pawns.

(diagram is at the bootom of post)

I thought this is not gonna be good for me and I exchanged the pawns for my piece, as follows:

Nxb4

axb4

Bxb4

I based my decision on following ideas:

- at lower level  of play, people thrive when they have clear plan (opposite side castling, passed pawns)...when situation is not so clear they have problem finding a plan, especialy if they can't attack the king

- the position is wide open, and my opponents bishops could really trouble me

- I didn't see clear way to the victory, until my knights would come to his king for some kind of attack, his pawns would be queening

- only reason against the piece sacrifice was the fact that my opponent was somewhat lower rated than me, and in parallel game where I was white I mated him in around 25 moves without much resistance.

By the way, game ended in a draw after 3-fold repetition of moves, which I enforced.

Sorry I don't know how to insert whole game, so here is just the critical position.

So, what do you think guys, did I made the right decision?

Thanks in advance.

No one can see the game.

Thanks for answering!

Let me reply...

I saw the d3 outpost, but was afraid he was going to chop it off and gain a pawn from it

I thought about pushing the pawns but was afraid of exposing my king. My main concern was  bishops, which could be parked behind the pawns on the B file, and really slice through the board.

Discovery on the queen is a cool trick, but I thougt it is too obvious in a correspondence game...

Sure there are possibilities in the position, but I was so concerned that the pawns are crossing the point where it will be hard to stop them.

To be honest, I have a problem...I see ghosts .

 I often think more about stopping my opponent threats, rather then making my own threats.

Stavros, I forgot to mention your first point - what you are saying is, to paraphrase Bobby F.(?) - don't play your opponent, play the position?

I can see the logic in that, but is it wrong to take in to consideration things like opponents strenght, age, does he likes open or closed positions, sharp tactics or slow manouvreing?

The point about the pawns is that you aren't under any obligation to swap the piece for them right now--you can always do that later.  In the meantime, you have an extra piece and a pawn at e4.  1....Rfd8; 2.Qb3, Ne5 and your ready for Nd3 (BxN, PxB; QxP??, Bh2+) as well as a potential Nf3+.  You're better developed, with a better center--why not push it?  It's going to be several moves before the passers get dangerous, so use the time to get everybody out there and working together--he's spotting you two rooks for the moment.  And remember that each pawn push he makes means there is one less defensive move he could have made.

The way I would look at it is you almost always have the chance to snatch two pawns for a minor peice. Why not wait until he invests some tempos to get them down the board. As he is doing this you can perhaps make threats while improving your peices, you will likely get tactical chances during the time he is trying to queen.

Exchanging this way is only possible if you know you simplify into a winning endgame. Here right after 23 ..Bxb4 white is just better as it is white to move and objectively white has the 2 bishops and a better structure because your pawn on e4 is weak. If white traded more smartly (not giving up the bishop pair and instead trading rooks) black is in trouble and will need to play very well to try to draw the game.

These passed pawns are not so dangerous with so many pieces on the board. In your case you can stop the pawns by waiting for b5 (a4 is not ever possible because b4 is attacked so many times), and then Na5 to stop the pawn with your knight. So lets say 22 ..Rb8  23. b5  Na5. Then you protect that knight. The a-pawn is stopped, stopping the b pawn at the same time.

The "not generally a good idea absent special cirucmstances" and "whats the rush" points should have nixed this.  R(f)d8 looks logical, and my Pocket Shredder likes bd5.  Either way, it gives you an advantage of about 1.50 -- i.e. you had a *winning* advantage with proper play.  If your pieces can stay active, pushing those pawns is going to be harder than you think for white.

Kicking myself is something of a hobby, so I understand you'll be doing some, but chess is supposed to be fun.  Try to learn from it and move on.  

Ok guys, thanks you for extensive answers!

You really talked some sense into me! It's really fascinating how one can view the same position from another angle, if some nice people point to him where to look for.

Well, all tactic and strategy aside, basically it all comes to one point - I chickened out!

Anyway, cheers for your input, it is much appreciated.

Nxb4 is a horrible move. Be5 exchanging the DSBs was called for.

But by exchanging pieces, I would lessen my chances for attack on the king?

No. By exchanging the DSBs you bag one of his pair of bishops. It seems you lack positional sense. Read a good book on strategic/positional chess.