Can someone tell me why this is a blunder? • page 1/1 • Game Analysis • lichess.org

On move 16 i played Bh5, but i dont understand why its a blunder? Im guessing that by not taking the knight, he can push the pawn on g3 and he has a very strong pawnchain infront of his king that makes my bishop useless in attacking him, while also controlling the dark squares because i dont have a dark squared bishop anymore. This makes his knight stronger than my light square bishop, therefore i should trade them?

https://lichess.org/Eh1f93LL/black

On move 16 i played Bh5, but i dont understand why its a blunder? Im guessing that by not taking the knight, he can push the pawn on g3 and he has a very strong pawnchain infront of his king that makes my bishop useless in attacking him, while also controlling the dark squares because i dont have a dark squared bishop anymore. This makes his knight stronger than my light square bishop, therefore i should trade them? https://lichess.org/Eh1f93LL/black

tpr

Indeed 16...Bh5? is a mistake because of 17 g4. You should trade 16...Bxf3 and then harass Bd6 with ...c5.

kindaspongey edited

[Site "https://lichess.org/Eh1f93LL"] [White "Tomoxadrez1022"] [Black "cosmic01"] [Result "0-1"] [Variant "Standard"] [TimeControl "600+0"] [Annotator "lichess.org"]
The transition, "16... Bh5?? (-0.95 --> 0.76)" may seem a little underwhelming for a word like "Blunder", and, indeed, the position after 16...Bh5 17 g4 Bg6 18 Qb3 doesn't seem like it would necessarily have been the end of the world for cosmic01.
Still, the position after 16...Bxf3 17 Bxf3 c5 18 Bf4 e5 19 dxe5 Nxe5 looks like it would have been a lot better with its prospects for ...Nxf3+.
I have to admit that I myself am not confident that I would have had the perception to see that the advantage of 16...Bxf3 was worth initially trading a bishop for a knight. It doesn't seem that 16...Bxf3 would have secured a decisive advantage, so, we are apparently looking at an easier-game possibility with better chances for a mistake by Tomoxadrez1022.

[Site "https://lichess.org/Eh1f93LL"] [White "Tomoxadrez1022"] [Black "cosmic01"] [Result "0-1"] [Variant "Standard"] [TimeControl "600+0"] [Annotator "lichess.org"] The transition, "16... Bh5?? (-0.95 --> 0.76)" may seem a little underwhelming for a word like "Blunder", and, indeed, the position after 16...Bh5 17 g4 Bg6 18 Qb3 doesn't seem like it would necessarily have been the end of the world for cosmic01. Still, the position after 16...Bxf3 17 Bxf3 c5 18 Bf4 e5 19 dxe5 Nxe5 looks like it would have been a lot better with its prospects for ...Nxf3+. I have to admit that I myself am not confident that I would have had the perception to see that the advantage of 16...Bxf3 was worth initially trading a bishop for a knight. It doesn't seem that 16...Bxf3 would have secured a decisive advantage, so, we are apparently looking at an easier-game possibility with better chances for a mistake by Tomoxadrez1022.