I posted this on reddit earlier and it's pretty much getting ignored, so I thought I would try here.

I played a game vs. a student of mine today (live, otb) and had a couple of interesting positions come up. In both positions, I felt like I had a clear idea of what needed to be done, but post-game analysis and discussion muddied the waters a bit. To help, I thought I would solicit advice from some cold looks at the position. The complete game is included, but it would be most helpful to me if thoughts were given without seeing how I played it beforehand.
Thanks for any responses.
Position #1:


How would you evaluate this position? It is white's move. Basically, a classical QGA with an exchange on f3. Plan for white?


Position #2:


White to move, again. Evaluation and plan?


Lichess game link (with computer analysis included): http://en.lichess.org/T0s7lxsQ

#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.

Black should have recaptured with the queen after your move. 10.-Qxc6 11. Qxc6+ bxc6, and you give him the doubled isolated pawns, but he gets to play c7-c5 quickly. You still have a superior structure after that anyway, but maybe it's a bit too unambitious.

I think if Black were forced to recapture with 10.-bxc6, then that weakness would be good enough to justify your move, I guess.

1. e4 Be7 2. Nc3 looks really appealing from a dynamic standpoint: the DSB is freed, there are ideas of Rd1 and then d4-d5, White's pieces get to develop faster, and 2.-Qxd4 is clearly nuts; yeah it's a weakening of the d-pawn, but that shouldn't be too significant, since it's not convenient for Black to rearrange pieces to target it yet.

Na4 looks like a good move to me indeed. The e4 push has a lot less bite in this position than the former I suppose.

I would not even consider Bb5 in the first position. Not saying that's good, maybe it is a flaw of mine, just saying I wouldn't do it. You have a perfect position out of the opening, with a permanent advantage of two bishops, without the usual weaknesses that come with two bishops from, let's say, Nimzo. It's a dream position, why do we need to transform it to something else? Because that's what Bb5 and Bxc6 is, you are transforming your dynamic advantage to a static advantage, turning two bishops in to doubled pawns. Now, I don't know, I guess it's the way modern chess is, but all I see for black are dynamic opportunities now that he has the b-file to work with and c5 to break. So to me, this transformation is completely not worth it from white's perspective. The beauty of having a permanent advantage like two bishops is that you can look for ways to transform the position based on your liking, sooner or later. This is way too early for me, and for way too little.

Awesome, guys. These are the types of decisions I've been struggling with lately, and your replies helped me see them much more clearly. I did in fact struggle with Black's dynamism (?) throughout, so these points hit home for me.

I quite like Rd1 in the second position. It stops E5 and C5 and prepares E4. You can then develop the bishop naturally and the other rook to C1

9.Bb5 Qd7 looks good, but why the rush to take on c6?

I was thinking at first 10.Bd2 O-O 11.Bxc6 Qxc6 (11...bxc6 12.Rc1) 12.Qxc6 bxc6 13.Rc1 Rab8 14.b3 Rb6 15.Nc3 intending Na4. It's getting very awkward trying to hold that c6 pawn.

Another idea is 10.b3 O-O 11.Bxc6 Qxc6 12.Qxc6 bxc6 13.Ba3 Rab8 14.Rc1 Rb6 15.Bc5 Ra6 16.Nd2

In either case the idea is to tie him down to c6 and lock down c5 as well.

In both of those I am not trading queens (if I can't get c5 in immediately, there is no sense in that) and playing Nd5 at some point, instead of putting the rook on b6.

OK, was just tossing out some candidates that get Rc1 in quickly, since no one else was looking at those. In the case where black doesn't trade queens, I don't like the b3/Ba3 idea, so Bd2 looks better overall.

After 10.Bd2 O-O 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Rc1, looking to meet Nd5 with e4, and tossing in b3 on R?b8. At least this is what I'm going to be thinking about when deciding whether to play 9.Bb5 at all, along with 10.Nc3 leading to the game continuation with a better move order. There is also 10.e4 which no one mentioned.

I think that your line with 10. Bd2 is likely critical for the idea I'm throwing out, but even there things are not very obvious to me. So, say, 9. Bb5 Qd7 10. Bd2 0-0 11. Bxc6 bxc6 12. Rc1, I will throw in 12... Rb8 13. b3 and we have sort of a critical position.

Now both 13... Rb6 and 13... Nd5 seem possible. Since you played Bd2, 13... Rb6 is now viable, since the bishop on d2 hangs and allows me to get c5 in in some lines. Say 13... Rb6 14. Nc3 c5 15. dxc5 (15. Na4 transposes) Bxc5 16. Na4 Rb5 17. Nxc5 Qxd2. However, I don't much like this for black due to the pawn structure and maybe even the immediate 18. Qc6 can bring in some material.

Instead, I'll stick with my 13... Nd5. The idea is that after e4 your d4 pawn always hangs, so it's not as easy as it seems. Say 14. e4 Ne7 (14... Nb4 also deserves a good look by the way, but it feels sketchy somehow) 15. e5 Bb4 and I am not sure who's better anymore, so white has to do better than that. Some sort of Rc4 seems annoying at some point, protecting d4 and taking away b4 from the bishop, so e5 is now a threat. So maybe 13... Nd5 14. e4 Ne7 15. Rc4. But then maybe 15... e5 16. dxe5 Bxe5 17. Bc3 Ng6 or something along these lines, where again it's not so clear to me, you have clear targets, but I control squares and files for now...

I won't argue that white is better in all of these, or at least his position is more pleasant, but I think it's EVEN better without that trade on c6

It's probably a bit of a style difference. I do like to trade the bishop pair for a structural weakness, if I can lock it down. But all the lines look pleasant for white, including not playing 9.Bb5. 8...Bd6 looks like a lemon that gives white's eventual e4 push more bite.

I did find one game where this was reached, and Bd6 was also played, but it looks like white lost control of things badly:

[Event "AUT-chT2O 0304"]
[Site "Austria"]
[Date "2003.10.25"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Hangweyrer, Roman"]
[Black "Wadsack, Wolfgang"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D25"]
[WhiteElo "2214"]
[BlackElo "2176"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 dxc4 4. e3 Bg4 5. Bxc4 e6 6. h3 Bxf3 7. Qxf3 Nc6 8.
O-O Bd6 9. Nc3 a6 10. Rd1 O-O 11. Bb3 e5 12. dxe5 Nxe5 13. Qxb7 Kh8 14. f4 Ng6
15. Ne4 Nxe4 16. Qxe4 f5 17. Qd4 Qe7 18. Bd2 Nxf4 19. Qc4 Ng6 20. Qe6 Qg5 21.
Be1 Rae8 22. Qc4 Qxe3+ 23. Bf2 Qe5 24. Rd2 Qh2+ 25. Kf1 Re4 26. Qc2 Rf4 27. Re1
Qh1+ 28. Ke2 Qxg2 29. Kd1 Bb4 30. Bd5 Qxh3 31. Rh1 Qg4+ 32. Kc1 Bxd2+ 33. Qxd2
Ne5 34. Rg1 Rxf2 0-1

I would play Nc3 in the first one and Na4 in the second one.

In the first one I don't think White's position is good enough to "break the rules" and mess around with the bishop instead of developing pieces. It's a little nicer for White if you play normal moves - if you fall behind in development you should never be better here.

In the second one any White advantage clearly comes from the c-file, not the centre. So you need to restrain c5 and then blockade there.

My thoughts without reading anything but the OP:

Black has a weird placement regarding his knight on c6 compared to the usual situation. He's very poorly placed to challenge the center and has given up the two bishops. My first thought is Bb5, which forces black to accept doubled isolated pawns, but at the same time, this isn't the end because after the exchange on c6, white needs to stop c6-c5. I like the idea of Bb5-a3-Bxc6-b4, after which white has a permanent space advantage as well as beautiful targets on the open c-file. White has a clear edge.

So this is obviously the same game, but white has not played a3+b4 so c5 is on threat, which can't be stopped. As such, white needs to prepare for that, meaning he has to get the bishop out of the way, and get his rooks to c1+d1. I still like a line like a3 c5 dxc5 Bxc5 b4 Bd6 Rd1 and Rc1. White's still a bit better, but it's not as good as before.

Thats the thing, problem with any a3-b4 idea is that it is always very strongly met by a5, giving black a lot of play. c5 has to be stopped with pieces, which is what makes it somewhat sketchy for me.

Agree, Rd1 feels natural to me. Even in the first position, it's the first thing I checked (although there it doesn't work).

Nc3

Rd1

no one has the right answers yet