You know, I've decided the d5 pawn is important and needs to be guarded. I just can't see letting my pawn structure get all chewed up over a Knight. If he takes my Knight, so be it. Yeah, so it's my White Bishop to a6.
I would rather he initiate the Knight trade. Should I take his Knight with mine, all sorts of developmental opportunities are present for Jim. I am not interested in allowing his Rook to advanced. Nothing is more disheartening than to see a Queen fronted by a Rook. Nor, for that matter, am I interested in allowing him to move a pawn back into the d file where it could do all sorts of misbehaving harassment. Trust me, misbehaving harassment from pawns is very irritating.
I would rather he initiate the Knight trade. Should I take his Knight with mine, all sorts of developmental opportunities are present for Jim. I am not interested in allowing his Rook to advanced. Nothing is more disheartening than to see a Queen fronted by a Rook. Nor, for that matter, am I interested in allowing him to move a pawn back into the d file where it could do all sorts of misbehaving harassment. Trust me, misbehaving harassment from pawns is very irritating.
Thus things grow more complicated. I haven't settled on my next move yet, but since you brought up my Rook...
I knew I was picking an odd time for castling on the Queen's side when I did it. It's an unusual move to make anyway. I've rarely seen players do it, probably because it puts the King in a more dangerous position that it would be in following a King-side castle -- one look at our present match shows this clearly. But it also puts the Queen's Rook in one of the center files, where it can potentially do some real damage down the road, I like that, and I've had more than a little success with this move before. That was the main reason I did it.
There was a second reason as well: the King-side path was blocked. And it still is.
I'll get back to you...
All right, I'm back. Pawn f-2 to f-4...