Quote:
Originally Posted by Rei Ayanami
#1: seems like a straightforward 1. Bb5 and 2. e4 with the initiative.
#2: 1. e4 again looks good.
White is better in both.
#1: This aligns with what I thought in the game, but I was surprised to find Bb5 not the top engine recommendation. The engine recommended just Nc3 and simply developing. With the simple developing plan, is the engine just acknowledging that white has a few positional trumps (space, center, bishops) and giving up the bishops while neglecting development for a long term static weakness was cashing in for under-value?
I really thought that Bb5 and taking was good because there was no way for black to stop creating double isolated pawns, plus it would be on an open c-file. The e4 plan occurred to me also, since it comes with the threat of e5, forking. However, I considered that if he simply moves the bishop back, say to e7, e5 is not actually a good move (gives d5 for the knight, makes d4 really stupid, etc.) As a result, e4 didn't make as much sense, since it would simply be weakening the d4 pawn. I held off on this idea for that reason. This led to some difficulty developing, which I struggled with for most of the middle game.
#2: I played Nh4, trying to stop black from playing c5, trading one of his weaknesses for one of my strengths. Again, the engine I used didn't consider this necessary. It looks tactically suspect since it is on the rim and undefended, especially considering the queen x-raying it, but it worked fine based on my calculation. Positionally, is Nh4 not necessary? It really felt like I had to play it at the time, so I was a little puzzled about it not being the main move here.