Planning in a position with more space?

So yesterday I played this game at my local club. The time control was 30+30, not as long as I would want to (last tournament I went the time controls were 1 and a half hour + 30, it was so cool to be able to stare for 20 minutes thinking about the positions) but I guess enough to play a not so mediocre game. The pairings were made and I started my game.

I think the game went relatively well for me, and I think I played the best moves after Bxe5. However Im interested to know your thoughts about the game, and some hypothetical situations:

THANKS IN ADVANCE

No comments? Where should I publish this to get comments? 

BUMP. ANY FREAKING HUMAN BEING HERE?

I did won, but I dont think I played a perfect game, and even if I did I would still like to talk with everyone about my hypothetical positions!

More space? avoid trades. 

@logozar, what do you think about 15.Ne5? How would you have developed in the opening? Dont be that dry!

Dunno how to answer any of your questions for sure.

Generally speaking, the way to exploit a Space advantage is to keep as many pieces on the board as possible (aka avoid exchanges) and to utilize alternating threats on widely separated parts of the board, to convert your Space advantage into a Time advantage. This works because the side that is cramped is less likely to have efficient routes connecting one flank to the other; so by giving him a poke in the center of the board, then on the King's side, then on the opposite flank you can usually make him fall behind in Time (because of awkward manoevers).

The problem is that in order to do this, you will need attackable targets on both flanks.

So if you see a position coming up where you are going to have a nice, solid Space advantage, you might think about creating targets on different sectors... targets that you can "alternate" against, later.

As far as specific comments go...

If you could get in 23. b4 and 24. b5, you would be threatening 25. Bxa7, yes? Unless Black found a new defensive arrangement within those two moves?

And what about the idea of Na2-b4 and a5-a6?

 @blueemu, THANKS DUDE. Great post, and nice explanation. You should be my grandpa or something, and I should stop it with the cringe material!

I didnt see the fork with b6, you are a tactical wizard! Now that I think about it 23.b4 seems to make a lot of sense. I knew that a main idea was to push my babies down the board, but somehow it didnt felt right to weaken c4, probably im just too picky because I knew there wasnt a real way to take advantage of c4 being weakened after b4, I would like to call it great intuition and feel for the position together with a strong Karpov style, but I may just be a patzer!

When playing the game I saw that playing a6 (if he cant take with the knight) was a possibility even if I didnt win the a6-pawn back because Bf3 would just win the pawn. But because he could play Nxa6 I quickly forgot about it.

I dont really see a way for Black to survive after my Na4-Nc5 but Na2-Nb4 seems so much concrete now that I think about it, a good coup d' grace!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, what do you think about my Ne5 tho? 

Not sure. The value of the Bishop pair isn't constant... it depends entirely on the position.

The value of the Bishop pair (in an ending) is maximized in open positions, with unbalanced Pawn formations on both flanks... such as 3 vs 2 on the Q-side and 3 vs 4 on the K-side.

This position (after the Bishop-for-Knight trade on e5 followed by a Queen swap) is only semi-open, with the Pawns balanced (both sides with a,b,c and e,f,g,h Pawns, 3 vs 3 and 4 vs 4).

So in this position, I wouldn't expect the Bishop pair to be a major factor... not unless the game opened up some more and/or the Pawns got unbalanced.

The bishop pair is always good! Lol.

My opponent as I said, suggested Rfd8 instead to be able to bring the e8 and exchange all the rooks on the d-file which makes a lot of sense. But I think that even then the bishop pair here is worth its full value (or close to it), because the a7 pawn is underpessure in a lot of variations, and I saw some Bxb6-Na4 cheapos in some lines where White plays b3 first.

I would play Ne5 10 times out of 10 if I knew he was going to play Bxe5, because in the worst case scenario he already gives me something to play for, but after the game I started thinking about just retreating the queen and playing Nd7, after that I thought Ne5 seemed like a patzerian move.

Does your "not sure" mean you wouldnt play Ne5?

I'm not sure I would have reached that position. I would probably have varied earlier... not because there's anything wrong with White's play or position, but just because it doesn't suit my style (whatever that is).

On a different topic, you mentioned the possibility of your opponent exchanging off all the Rooks on the d-file. Whenever the Pawn formations are balanced (in this case, 3 vs 3 and 4 vs 4) there will be only one open file, and neither player will want to allow the opponent to double Rooks on it. So a multiple exchange of Rooks on the open file is always a real possibility in that type of position.

I usually prefer to keep as much material on the board as possible, to keep the game dynamic. So the solution I sometimes adopt in that situation is to trade off ONE pair of Rooks on the open file (to rule out the possibility of my opponent doubling Rooks... he's only got one left) and THEN concede the file to my opponent. That keeps one pair of Rooks on the board, and minimizes the drawbacks of conceding the file.

Here's an example, played on this site:

Im just like you lol. I was planning on doing that during the game.Exchanging rooks on the d-file and then putting the remaining rook either in the b or c-file, because my bishops cover all possible entrances and so he has no play on the d-file.

I think it is because I feel more in control of the game when there are rooks remaining than when Im in a minor piece endgame.

Maybe I just suck at minor pieces endgames and should improve them instead of avoiding them lol.

I liked your game @blueemu, it was very cool to see the knight dance. 

I was a little bit hesitant about e5, because it weakens d5, but I guess you have a c-pawn to solve that problem.

If Black had played something like Qc7 after Bg5, where you gonna manouver with h3-Nh2-Ng4? 

Black's Queen and Rook were skewered... he had no choice about playing f7-f6.

A Knight manoever through h2 is a common theme, but the h-Pawn usually moves to h4 rather than h3 (unless something funky is happening).

OH WAIT LOL.

Yes. Dangit, Im just eating booger right now, shouldnt talk about chess after waking up lol.

Why to h4 for tho, isnt it more flexible to leave it on h3?

Also, may I ask you what did you play against this Alekhine with dxe5? I usually find your opening choices interesting.

 The push to h4 is (a) to dominate the dark squares on the King's side, (b) to sometimes push on to h5 and even h6, to weaken Black's Pawns, and (c) a prophylactic measure against g7-g5, which can mess up a White formation that includes B on f4 and N on f3 defending e5.

Here's an OTB tournament game of mine:

As far as that dxe5 variation goes... in fact, I usually play either 2. d3 (KIA) or 2. Nc3 (Dunst) against the Alekhine's. Try 1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. exd5 Nxd5 4. Bc4 Nxc3 5. Qf3!

I just realized that in that first game I showed you (post #13), I made ten Knight-moves in a row: moves 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29.

Yes. I was expecting a KIA against anything lol. You seem to have very good feels for the positions in the KIA.

h4 now makes more sense, it also supports Ng5. Thanks for passing me on your knowledge.

I may try the KIA religiously, how difficult can it be, I play it with Black all the time lol.