I have spent the better part of an hour trying to figure out why 16. ... Nf4 was inferior to Nh4. I can see from Stockfish lots of pretty moves that flow from Nh4. I sat and contemplated Nf4 vs Nh4. I ended up shying away from h4 b/c I didn't see any compelling reason to go that route. Yet it turns out it was a much better move. I bet any 1800 rated player would instantly see that as the right direction. What is so appealing about it? I get that tactically there are lots of options that way thanks to Stockfish. But I don't see what would clue me in on it strategically or based on imbalances (a la IM Silman).
Please help me to understand this blunder
Sort:
Nf4 blocks the rook's access to the f-file and allows white to castle. After 16. fxe5, the white king is very vulnerable. In fact, while going through this game I was very uncomfortable with white's recklessness wrt his king. Nf4 basically gives white a way out of an extremely awkward, dangerous position.
I think aaronprince hit the nail on the head. Nf4, and black loses his initiative. Nh4, black keeps his initiative.
If nothing else, Nf4 lets white castle, getting his king to safety and his rook in play.
My sincerest thanks to all y'all. 8) It's been irritating me to no end this evening. You know, I played fxe5 in hopes that the file would open up for my rook and so I could prevent castling. I have no idea why I decided it was OK to allow it afterwards. The analysis above is correct - that rook severely restricts the ability to get the king to safety.
It's people like you 3 who make chess so wonderful. THANK you for your help, guys.