Move 17 rendered as a blunder for white, not sure why. An Explanation would be appreciated... how often do blunders occur for 1800-2100 players in blitz? and how to avoid them?
It gives up the control over the dark squares e5 and f6. And there is no prospect to play f5-f6 to attack on the kingside and no dark squared bishop to cover those squares. The Bd5 is the best minor piece on the board and vulnerable to knight jumps, so the best continuation is to keep it safe with something like 17. a3 Nf6 18. Ba2 Qd7 19. Qd3 Rae8 20. Rae1 Re7 21. h3 Rfe8 22. g4 with a clear advantage.
A 5 0 game means you have 5-10 seconds per move, it's impossible to play complicated position correctly at such pace for almost all players. Blunders happens all the time at every level in blitz. But 17. f5 is a bad positional mistake players above some level will (almost) never make.
A 5 0 game means you have 5-10 seconds per move, it's impossible to play complicated position correctly at such pace for almost all players. Blunders happens all the time at every level in blitz. But 17. f5 is a bad positional mistake players above some level will (almost) never make.
You can't even avoid in long games^^
As others have stated, the move is a blunder because it gives Black permanent control of the e5 square, and Black's knights can install themselves there. True, you didn't get punished for it, but the strategic blunder is obvious.
More than a hundred years ago, when chess strategy was already well understood, the following game came as a big sensation:
www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1258181&kpage=5
Lasker demonstrates to all the experts' amazement that SOMETIMES you can actually play an "ugly" looking move like 12 f5.
But the Lasker position is quite different from the position in your game:
For one thing, in your game Black has not only one but TWO knights that can jump into e5. You could've taken on c6 before playing f5, but even then the remaining knight would stand on d7, ready to go to e5, while Capablanca's knight was on e7, unable to reach e5.
Secondly, notice how in the Lasker-Capablanca game, Black's f-pawn stands on f6 and not, as in your game, on f7. This means that Lasker's f5 creates a strong outpost square on e6 for his OWN knight, which will eventually reach that square on move 16, while in the meantime Capablanca's knight is unable to reach e5.
You can really believe that the weakening of the e5 square is plainly the reason why the move f5 is bad in this pawn structure. The Lasker-Capablanca game is an exception while your game isn't.
More than a hundred years ago, when chess strategy was already well understood, the following game came as a big sensation:
www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1258181&kpage=5
Lasker demonstrates to all the experts' amazement that SOMETIMES you can actually play an "ugly" looking move like 12 f5.
But the Lasker position is quite different from the position in your game:
For one thing, in your game Black has not only one but TWO knights that can jump into e5. You could've taken on c6 before playing f5, but even then the remaining knight would stand on d7, ready to go to e5, while Capablanca's knight was on e7, unable to reach e5.
Secondly, notice how in the Lasker-Capablanca game, Black's f-pawn stands on f6 and not, as in your game, on f7. This means that Lasker's f5 creates a strong outpost square on e6 for his OWN knight, which will eventually reach that square on move 16, while in the meantime Capablanca's knight is unable to reach e5.
You can really believe that the weakening of the e5 square is plainly the reason why the move f5 is bad in this pawn structure. The Lasker-Capablanca game is an exception while your game isn't.
well, when i look at the position what i see is rook lift, whites light square bishop and queens open digonal. when you push pawn you no longer can move your queen to sweet squares, horsey can jump to e5 obviously, and your queen no longer see your bishop horizontally. and f5 is safe house for blacks horsey
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.