The computer said 8 Bb5 was a mistake, but I think the computeralternative did allow more counterplay than Bb5. Computer didnt like 16.Bg5 either. I played it both to develop my pieces and prevent black castling and think it was maintaining the pressure well. It was a 5 min5 sec blitzgame.
Was this a perfect game?- computer disagrees
Sort:
Well played. It's not a perfect game though. The computer was right that 8. Nxc6 is a much better move that 8. Bb5. Nc6 wins a piece at least in quite a straight forward manner. Bb5 leads to a lot more complications.
The engines aren't perfect, especially when Stockfish on chess.com must be set to something like 8 ply. I know Stockfish takes about 70 seconds/half move through Lucas Chess, on my relatively fast computer (3.2 GHz quad-core processor) when its set on 20 ply and a few of its move ratings usually differ than chess.com's computer analysis, sometimes including inaccuracies.
In one case, Stockfish thought at 20-ply, that a move I made in the Vienna was a mistake but Suetin, in his massive The Complete Vienna book, called the move "forced."
So, while going by the engine's evaluation is good in general, remember to take it with a grain of salt: it may not see everything.
Micky, didn't consider 5Ng5. It was a blitz, and I have not looked into the fried liver attack. Interesting idea it is. My nephew Eivind Sæteren Berntsen have advised me to not knight jump high up to early.
Corum, I didn't see the perpetual check line after 8bd5. I must look more at that.
Of course the computerline is a strong one, but it allowed castling, and the way I played the game, it was all about attacking an uncastled king. To eat pieces is generally good, but its not necessary to eat more than we need to crush the king.