Question about best move

Hi! I'm having trouble with a plan and finding what the best moves are. What I want to do is basically tell you what my thinking process is, and hopefully people can help validate my process, or tell me where I'm screwing up ;)

Here's a position that I'm analyzing:

Now, it's white to play (me). I think white is winning here. There's an open e-file here which I can place my Kingside rook on. I can make this move immediately, which has the benefit that if he goes Bxc4, he won't be attacking the rook. However, if he does take it if I make another move, I can always move go Re1 in response to him taking the pawn. The real question, is moving the rook and getting an edge in development worth this pawn sacrifice? I dunno.

I thought of a few lines. Like this one:

1. Nb4 Qxd2
2. Bxd2 Bxc4
3. Re1

Here he wins a pawn, but I get the e-file and it's totally open for white. There's also a simpler:

1. Re1 Bxc4

This looks less-good for me. I think it's better with the queen's off... but that's just me. What do I know?

I also see the half-open d-file. Obviously, some part of my 'plan' should include occupying both the d- and e-files, so at some point, Rad1 is a good move. It also places the rook on the same file as the queen, which can't be a bad thing if my Knight moves. I could see a double-attack at some point, and with a Queen+Rook on the same file, that could be very powerful.

Material right now is even. So if I want to keep it even (and if the pawn sacrifice isn't worth it (how the heck would I know that?), then I should really protect the c4 pawn. That's the problem with a double pawn like I have - it's hard to defend it.

An obvious defense of my c4 pawn is b3, but this move is pretty reactionary. It doesn't do anything further my own plans. Still, I wouldn't have to defend the pawn with my pieces, which could allow me to make better moves on future turns. Other than Qd3 or Qd4, I don't see any other ways to defend the pawn.

I also see that all of his pieces are all on the queenside. His Knight and rook are undeveloped. This gives white better iniative I think, which means an attack at some point is possible. Maybe not on the king, but somewhere. I don't see any quick mating sequence, although if my rooks on better files and my Queen and Bishop were aiming at the kingside on the right squares, there could be some potential. Still, lots of time for him react. I should do *something* though to make sure he's more passive.

Also, I'd like to get rid of his bishop. If I can get rid of it for the Knight, I'm sure that would give me a big advantage considering the position is open. At this moment in time, I really don't know how to do that.

Any help is appreciated.

after you play Bf4, attacking the Queen, you already threaten to win a rook by Nxf7.

I don't think it would be a good idea to sacrifice a pawn for development and trade the Queens of at the same time, so you should look for alternatives as the one mentioned above :)

That looks good. How did you see that? Like what thinking process did you use to see that move? You see, I've been bouncing his queen along all game. It's why I'm winning. I thought his Ba6 move was pretty bad. It looked fishy. I just didn't know how to best take advantage of it.

I think I'm having a problem where I'm paying WAY too much attention to the attack and defense of my pieces... and be cause of that, I'm missing totally different 'kinds' of moves. Does that make any sense? What questions can I ask myself... or what process can I use... to expand my vision or move selection?

And a better question, how does Bf4 relate to 'the plan'? What 'plan' would have made that move appear obvious? This is what I'm having trouble with.

When I saw that position, Bf4 was the move that jumped out to me as well....however, it seems you missed it.

 the question you need to ask yourself is this: "had I of seen Bf4, would I have noticed its power?"

If the awnser is "no", then it sounds like simple tactics are your problem, but, if the awnser is "yes" then the solution is simple.

that being; the only "error" in your thinking is your 'scope of concentration' (i.e you too quickly focused on one possible line, ignoring others)

To avoid this, all you need to do is spend say, a minute a move LOOKING AT ALL THE OPTIONS, and create a shortlist of further analysis.

Here's another position where I have so many options, I have NO idea what is best:

Then I started looking at moves he could make. 2. Na6, 2. Nxg7, 2. Ne7 all lead to the capture of his piece, with little compensation for him. Then I thought, wow... 2. Nxd6 gets rid of my base pawn... that could be bad. It took me about 1 minute to realize that my Queen could recapture. Duh! I really don't like how long it takes me to *see* the geometry who is attacking/defending what. That's a huge weakness of mine. Maybe it's because I only have vision with 1 eye?

Anyway, I thought back to the original position and it took me some time to even see that he just put his Knight in possible capture with 1... Bxf5 and 2. exd5. Why? I immediately thought there has to be reason! Am I in trouble? But what?

By capture with his pawn, he's getting rid of one of his attackers on the d5 square. His pawn would be blockaded by the Knight too. I don't see why he would willingly do this. So, 1... Bxf5 seems like a candidate move for me. It gets a 4th rank Knight of out my territory, and damages his center.

Past this though... I have no idea what I could do. I could just simply ignore the threat and just develop the Knight with 1... Nc6. This is good because he moves his Knight twice for no good reason, and I continue my development.

Still, it seems like my thinking process is really terrible.

Would I have seen it's power? Honestly, I'm not sure. I think I did look at moves with my bishop. For some reason, I thought I  was leaving it hanging.

I also remember Silman saying things like, "Don't attack the King or Queen for no reason. Who cares if you can attack his queen? He just moves it. What does this accomplish? NOTHING!"

He says this a million times in his book, "The Amateur's Mind". In a way, I think it trained my mind to not look at attacks against the king or queen at all. Maybe that's not what his intention was... but that's the lesson it taught me. I just saw his queen move to safety.

So it was a "scope of concentration". Because the bishop move wasn't "good", I only saw moves like Qd3, b4, Re1, etc.

Still, it seems like my thinking process is really terrible.

I don't think there's anything wrong with your thinking process...  you ask good questions and your thinking seems clear enough, although you do seem a bit twitchy.  

Your problem is my problem is everyone's  problem: tactical vision.  You see basic elements of the position slowly and you miss deeper (but still elementary) tactical elements altogether.  Believe me, I can relate. 

Please realize, positional chess is frustrating and losing without sharp tactical vision. 

The way to improve tactics is to drill tactics. Do short puzzles, do long puzzles -- hours and hours of puzzle solving, (best is with positions drawn from actual games IMO) ... solve puzzles every day (I do.) and your vision will improve -- It might take a solid year of diligent work to see strong improvement, but if you work daily, for a year, you'll see real gains. I know this and other sites use timers for their tactical training, I am a big fan of untimed puzzles, and of solving longer harder puzzles -- with no moving of the pieces allowed. You want to work your ability to visualize down a line, and to examine multiple possibilities on a single position... those are the mental muscles you need to develop. So I am a big fan of the puzzle of the day at Chessgames.com, and the 'kibitzing" on the puzzle.  I am a big fan of the program CT Art 3.0.

Tactics is the doorway to better chess -- more creative, more fun, and oddly enough more strategic -- because strategy is nearly meaningless until the tactics are at least semi-solid. 

In your first game... the thinking process that leads to Bf4 is more of a seeing process.  So,  -- First, when looking at a position one always wants to consider forcing moves, checks, attacks on hanging pieces, attacks on valuable pieces like the queen,etc.  -- Secondly, your Queen and bishop form a battery... just as you would naturally look at what two rooks control in a battery, you want to see what possibilities your Q + B battery has...--  Thirdly, that N is strongly posted, what can it do for me? Why look, The N attacks c7 (and Nxc7 would fork the bishop and rook!*edit -- oops, not really, wasn't looking at the board when I wrote that, the  b8 N guards the B*) and the c7 pawn is only guarded by the Q... I wonder if there's a way to chase that Queen away...

All this should make the Bf4 move pop out at you. *edit -- but on second look, you want to really examine where the queen gets chased to and what happens when his bishop takes your c-pawn... there's stuff going on there, it's not like his position is totally inert.*

In the second game, I would snatch up that N, thinking, "I'm exchanging my undeveloped B for his forward posted N which is attacking my glaringly weak backward d-pawn...this exchange will draw his pawn away from the center, and even better release my center pawns to advance... it doubles his pawns on the f-file and in no way constrains my position...my god what's not to like?" 

I look to see if I have some pressing tactics that demand immediate attention (either a threat of mine, or one against me) and seeing none... I grab the N pronto.  Black still has problems to solve, but things are better with the N gone. 

Now I suppose in the second position I'm using strategic rather than tactical thinking... but the strategy is hardly very deep, it's more commonsense than anything... and I definitely still check as accurately as I can to see if there are any sharp & pointy tactical consequences arising from the B for N exchange. 

To me Bf4 seems best White rules development anyway

I also remember Silman saying things like, "Don't attack the King or Queen for no reason. Who cares if you can attack his queen? He just moves it. What does this accomplish? NOTHING!"

I like Jeremy Silman's books _very_ much. He's almost alone in really teaching chess -- how to think about a position etc.  His "imbalances" are a wonderful tool for looking at chess, and I find his writing inspiring.  But you've got to take everything Silman says and realize: this is a very naturally gifted chess player -- the chess gift _is_ the tactical gift.  He undervalues tactical vision... he can't understand what it's like for you and me to look at a postion and not see _basic_ things.  He's been able to see color his whole life, he can't really understand what it's like to be colorblind. 

There's attacking the Queen and accomplishing nothing, (or worse, encouraging the Queen to find a better a square) And there's posting your bishop so that you skewer the c-pawn through the Queen driving her from her defensive post... and you need to be able to see the difference! You can't see the difference until you first look.  Someone like Silman sees the difference _instantly_, without realizing he's looked, it's just there, it's something he sees ... you and I have to be more methodical... and spend a second or ten calculating.  

Checking forcing moves, and looking down forcing lines, is very important IMO.  Forcing lines are latent positions-within-the-position. They're there, and when  you uncover them they often contain surprises.  

You must examine checks, queen attacks, captures, etc.... just because they're there doesn't mean you play the move. The move must accomplish something in order to be played. ... but you must examine them. 

(Silman often mentions his chess hero as a youngster was Alekhine... that should tell you something about Silman and tactics ;)

Thanks JG27Pyth! That's super helpful.

I guess your logic about taking the Knight was exactly the same as mine. So I guess strategically/positionally, I'm probably thinking logically. So you're right - tactical vision is my problem, or maybe even just geometric vision for how long it takes me to see all the attacks, defenses, holes, etc. in a given position. Somehow... I get this impression that some people can just look at the board and instantly take in all this information. I'm very slow.

I have worked through the "Chess Tactics for Students" book recommend by Dan Heissman. I didn't find the problems in that book too difficult.

How much did it help me? Well, I'm definitely aware of what the tactics are... I can sometimes see them coming at me (I have many times avoided forks, got out of nasty pins seeing the consequences, or avoided skewers because of this knowledge). I only see it within 1 or 2 moves though.

As for applying the tactics... I don't think I've really progressed. As many authors say, "It's not like your opponent is going to give you a text-book tactical position on a silver platter." So, I rarely see tactical possibilities.

I will get the program CT Art 3.0. That sounds like something that can help! Thanks. I guess I'll just keep plugging away.

Oh man... These are active positions. Very not OK! This is cheating! I'm sure you didn't mean to cheat because you wouldn't have been this open about it... but this is wrong.

Explain to you opponent what has happened, say "I screwed up, sorry -- I'm just trying to learn" or whatever... and ask them what they want you to do... if they demand an immediate resignation, which they have every right to demand. Do it. (It's not like you're losing a lot of rating) It is absolutely not ok to ask for help on active positions.   

Hi Ray,

I think it is really bad form to ask for feedback on a game in progress, especially since you are being adviced on moves to come. Your opponent is playing you, not everyone from chess.com.

Trying to learn is cool, but you should save the questions untill after the game has ended. 

Ray, this is not allowed!

Your game is still running.

I just saw that you played the sugested move Bf4.

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=7196468