You bring up an interesting point towards the end, that Black has many pieces that can land on e5, but only one can do so at a given time. That makes me think that, if this is the best square for Black, if you deny it from him then his forces look rather silly, and that indeed is the case. The best I can see Black doing after your 'Old Man' (read as 'Experienced') move of g4-g5 is to jettison the c-pawn and 'hoping' to get counter-play.

In a quick evaluation at the beginning of this video for candidate moves I chose Qf3 first and g5 second (I didn't think that e1 was the square for the rook just yet). I didn't even consider playing f5, yet in a time long long ago, you played it after a minute's reflection.

This is interesting to me as I often look back at my games from the 70's and 80's and am surprised at my choices. Today, my candidate moves were basically polar opposites, Qf3 trying to build up active play, and g5 to deny my opponent of important squares. This is my difference as a more experienced player (read as 'Old Man'), I look at both sides of the coin whereas when I was younger I only looked for the most aggressive continuations. I hope older=wiser and that I'm not missing any really sharp and fun stuff as the years progress

Anyway - thanks for another fine presentation and I hope you have a happy and prosperous New Year!

Thanks Dennis, again a very instructive session, more form the chess viewpoint than any psychoanalytical one For mine, you are just a good fellow!

I chose Qf3 for development reasons, not to push f5 since I only saw far enough to realise I'd be giving up the square to the knight. I become easily overwhelmed in these kinds of positions so it was great to see your analysis, Dennis.

I would continue after Qf3 by developing the dark squared bishop and Ra1 to e1, hoping that Black "made the move" that set things in motion. I guess that's why your username is Initiative, not mine I also missed Knight g3 in some of your lines and I was afraid of Black's lightsquared bishop's development as a result.

I, too, have noticed a change in my play of late. I have been studying positional chess almost exclusively this past year and when I was watching your video the only move I considered was g5. I thought it was a fantastic positional move, but a year ago I think I would have only considered f5. I guess the key is to get to the point where I can see both f5 and g5 and evaluate them both accurately to come to which is better.

Very interesting lesson. Does anyone have the game in PGN format ? (not necessarily with full analysis, only plain moves would be enough). Thanks!

Nice game, thanks

I'm pleased I saw g5 straight away! That seems more like a Kramnik style move. Maybe I'm already old and crusty...