Tactical rule of mine (everyone's?)...

Please solve the puzzle below before:

Let me know how you did as I'm interested in what level of player would take advantage of this otb per se. If you used the computer then be honest please. Thank you.

Here is the game:

Side rant:

I decided to kind of do my own thing in the opening which probably wasn't a good idea. I know a few KG lines but didn't want to follow them since my opponent probably wanted this. What do you think? I don't really want to focus on opening theory on lines like this and the sicilian and have thought about just winging it for the learning experience. I have studied openings too much for a beginner and know a few lines in most openings but not anything worth much. Is this okay?

Yes, a tricky line. Got it after some thought. The thing is your reply is forced every time. Easily overlooked, but try to force yourself to look 1 move further when you look at a line and think 'this is ok for me'. Avoid these stings in the tail. As for your opening play in general, if you had gone Ne5 instead of Bxf3 you would have had a nice position so it looks ok to me.

Unfortunately I was going for what happened in the game instead of being more subjective....( a common problem of hope chess) I thought that Ne5 would probably be early but it wasn't due to the tactic. Of course I thought that Bxf3 was fine in general in my hasty analysis. It has recently been put in laymans terms to me that tactical skill is more often applied to determining whether a move is safe rather than to win material when the players are on the same level. I'm still working on rewiring my brain to this. I think that simple truth will help me prevent this type of mistake in the future.

After dxc6 Qxc6, I played Qd3, winning. The move mentioned wins as well but other tries should have been mentioned.

Yeah I played Qd3 too. Seemed like the simplest continuation.

10.Qd3 Qc5+! 11.Kh1 Bh5. Not that simple. White still has a huge lead in development and far more than enough compensation for the pawn, but black is holding for now. The move given wins material by force.

10.Qd3 is very nice indeed. I have edited the puzzle to reflect that. Thank you for pointing it out.

My main goal was to show the knight tactic but I guess this position isn't perfect for that.

I hope that people find it is good enough to "be of use" ,per se, though.

I saw that but earlier I thought that blacks queen was lost after 12 Rxf4 (threatening Rf5) Bg6 13 Nd5 followed by b4 but black can keep squirming with 13...a6. Arrrgh! *Shakes fist*

Interesting line. It's amazing how resourceful a position can be even when it is quite worse.

The Qd5 line ultimately only wins a little bit of material: an exchange for two pawns (assuming the Knight on a8 is doomed).  If, after Nxa8 g5, White continues with Bxf7 to regain a pawn, then after Nf6 the computer thinks White is barely better at all.  This makes sense, as all of White's pieces are passive, his linear pieces aren't on open lines and Black is near fully developed.  I think White may be better, but the resulting positions are easier for Black to play, if that makes sense.

Contrast to the Qd3 lines, where Black is grovelling to survive a cramped, disorganized, disgusting position where White has a series of natural moves coming up.  White can play just about any logical move and have a serious initiative.  Black needs to find only moves to not lose instantly.  I'd say White is both better and has the easier position to play practically.

That makes sense and it is fairly easy to see after Qd3 appears on the board. I didn't even consider it since I didn't realize that this was probably the most critical position for black in the whole game. It is very good to be able to detect such things... and I'm working on it.

This has turned into a lesson that seems to amount to this: It is not enough to see a tactic. You have to be able to accurately analyze the resulting position as well. I know being strongly material minded will hurt you at the higher ratings and that it is often to even see positional sacrifices at the master level but these players usually have a really good understanding of the game, far better than I. The reality is that I may never be able to play with such skill, but that won't keep me from trying. I know I haven't played or played over even 10% (if that) of the games that any master has so I have to step my game up a lot.