Actually, in your particular example, you missed the simple fact that Kf8 DOES NOT have to be played before a6:
Bf5 b3 a6 Be8 Kf8 [bishop is trapped] Bxf7? Kxf7.
Since b3 does not work, we need to try something else:
b5 cxb5 Be2!? Re1 Bf3 Be3 ... and white wins a pawn.
Therefore, it seems that Bf5 is actually a good move!
In anycase, whether this is a good example or not, I understand your point and think you are correct.
I think I’ve identified a difference between the strong and the weak (understand, comrades, that I speak from the position of the weak). It is likely that I’m wrong, but I shall submit my hypothesis to a public forum, along with the associated proof, for the review of the good people of chess.com.
My hypothesis runs thus: For weaker players, a conception on the board is made often in the hope that the opponent will not see the threat. If I can do x, y & z, I will have achieved some goal, such as trapping a piece or breaking into the Royal abode. Some of these plans can be reasonably foresighted and imaginative, yet there is no denying that they have a refutation. They are played with an air of the gambler, a conscious bet that this opponent may not see what I am trying to do. The illusion is enhanced if it can be coupled with what looks like a different plan; a distraction if you will. To illustrate my point, please observe the following game fragment:
I don’t think this idea would have worked against a strong player. I think I would have been mashed up, the strong player having long since extricated his bishop from any semblance of danger. I call this hypothesis “The Weak Stakes Bet”. I, literally, bet you the outcome of this game that you cannot see what I am trying to do. If you can, I lose. If you can’t, I win. Probably won’t win me any tournaments though L