This is an odd post. You're a pretty decent blitz player with a rating over 2000. 18 ... Qc7 might not have been the best move, but it certainly doesn't qualify as a blunder and deserve a "??". I was expecting you to have hung a piece or something.
In fact Stockfish likes Bxb3 (-1.07) only slightly more than Qc7 (-.99), but the engine still thinks you're a little ahead either way.
I should have guessed that someone would check an engine...
I would like to hear opinions from people, please no engine evaluations.
What opinion do you want? Without checking an engine, I can tell you that Qc7 is not a blunder. The position is pretty equal, and there are a number of moves you can make that are not bad, Qc7 is one of them. Sure you give up the bishop pair, but if white plays Nc5 then you will likely need to trade your DSB for it anyway, being that c5 would be a very nice square for the opponents knight, and no other way to dislodge it without giving up an exchange.
I'm not trying to be rude but it just seems like a troll post.
What is a troll post?
Without checking an engine, I can tell you that Qc7 is not a blunder.
I consider it a blunder (or at least a mistake) for the following reason:
If black plays ...Qb6 instead of ...Qc7 then his advantage is at very least serious - possibly decisive (positionally speaking).
His advantages include:
Sure you give up the bishop pair, but if white plays Nc5 then you will likely need to trade your DSB for it anyway
If white plays Nc5 when I didn't trade dark squared bishops, Black wins a pawn. Trading dark squared bishops removes the defender of the c5 outpost.
You're a pretty decent blitz player with a rating over 2000.
In my opinion, blitz is not my strength.
This was not a blitz game - it was 30/5.
The position is pretty equal
I disagree. Can you explain why you think that?
After ...Qc7 white blundered with f3.
The line with Bg3 was my analysis, not the game continuation.
@Phirex
I thought white could equalize after ...Qc7.
Maybe not...
Thank you! It appears that Black is better in this endgame after all.
I wasn't thinking of preparing ...b4 though now I see that that plan is more effective than ...a6 a4. Thanks!
Without checking an engine, I can tell you that Qc7 is not a blunder.
I consider it a blunder (or at least a mistake) for the following reason:
If black plays ...Qb6 instead of ...Qc7 then his advantage is at very least serious - possibly decisive (positionally speaking).
His advantages include:
Bishop pair in open position White has a backward c pawn that is easily targetted (Double rooks on c file) The c4 outpost (because of point 2)Usually when your opponent has a clear weakness in their position (in this case c3) it is a good idea trade minor pieces, as it reduces their counterplay. You can then triple on the weakness with your heavy pieces and, once your opponent has been reduced to a passive state, create a new weakness in their position. This strategy is especially effective against isolated pawns.
I was more concerned with the bishop pair - I suppose the weakness on c3 was more important.
This is very useful. Thank you!
Qc7 is not a blunder, it's just a positional mistake. If you understand why it's a mistake, then that's a good thing. I wouldn't read too much into this
A move can't be a blunder if you go from a somewhat better but not winning position to a slightly better position. That's the wrong term for it.
It's a bit of a humblebrag to call that an example of your blunders :P
At this point based on analysis of Phirex, I think this is only an inaccuracy (if followed up correctly).
I now understand better how to take advantage of those queenside weaknesses without the minor pieces.
I'd still rather keep the bishop pair with Qb6 but it appears that ...Qc7 is not a blunder and is playable.
Qc7 is not a blunder, it's just a positional mistake. If you understand why it's a mistake, then that's a good thing. I wouldn't read too much into this
I agree - it isn't a blunder.
I originally liked it (when I played it) - then I realized the consiquences of allowing Bg3. Then I thought it was a mistake, analyzed deeper and thought it was a blunder.
After seeing Phirex's post, I now think it was only an inaccuracy.
I made a very bad move yesterday in a slow game (30/5).
Feel free to criticize it or offer advice.
My analysis might be incorrect - I did not use an engine to analyze this game.