Hello, fellow Patzers, Quackers, and Quatzers alike! As a chess player, often you may find yourself challenged to find the best move on the board. Whether it be a tactical sacrifice or positional subtlety, there is always that one move that stands above the rest. In the best move is always some logical consistency - that is, there is some reason for why that move played is the best move.
But sometimes, logic can be misleading. What may seem obvious through logical consideration may have a fatal flaw, something so unexpected and unforeseen that the very move that was considered logical in retrospect leads to your downfall in the way it created your uprising.
In the below position, instead of finding the best move, I challenge you to find that logical flaw. How could have, in a position that evaluates Black has having a forced mate in under 20 moves, could Black unwillingly throw the game with a move he deemed perfectly logical?
I'll walk you through Black's thinking process, and the fatal thinking gap which drew this otherwise trivially won game.
OK, Black was successfully able to avoid the most tempting of captures. But what of the other?
Okay, let's look back at our original position, after cxd4, Nxd4 and Bxd4. Funnily enough, Rxd4 also transposes to the same position actually played in the game, but in view of complications from Rxd4 played immediately Black unfortunately was unable to make that connection. I believe this has some value to be told, that no matter how natural or logical a move looks you should always keep your eye out for dirty little tricks (I'm looking at you, @IMRosen)
Thanks for reading my first Forum post in Duck State University. I hope you enjoyed and there will sure to be more to come