Candidate Moves, A Grandmaster's Method - Christian Bauer (K-5386)

My lazy side prompted me to think that a collection of my games could do the trick, since, based on statistics, among my average of some hundred classical games per year, a certain proportion of them should be of interest. At least I hope.
I found the idea to switch sides. By this, I mean to look at games from White’s perspective and then from Black’s. A rather interesting concept, as things oft en appear quite different, depending on the viewpoint. If one searches for videos showing a joint analysis of elite players, one may oft en see them completely disagree on certain positions, both of them claiming he stood, or would have stood, better here or there. And, more than likely, had the colours been swapped, the very same players would also have preferred “their side”; while the engine found the game more or less balanced from beginning to end :).
There is a famous anecdote involving an ex-World Champion, who would label the same position as better for one side or the other, depending on whether he was conducting the White or Black pieces. The justification being: he knew what to do (the plans) for both sides!
On a more serious note, when playing a game, one can hardly expect to be completely objective. Given one’s personality, a certain player may have a pessimistic or optimistic tendency, oft en find his ideas and decisions justified while they are in fact questionable, or vice versa. Looking at a game from White’s standpoint and then from Black’s, aims, in my view, at diminishing the subjective portion of the analysis, even though one will oft en naturally feel more sympathy for one camp or the other in a given position.
At some points throughout the book, I make some comparisons with betterknown openings, to illustrate where some ideas may have been borrowed from and to facilitate the reader’s pattern recognition. For instance, in Bauer-Valles from chapter 4, the position we reached out of the opening had significant similarities with a certain line from the Trompowsky. I also tried to off er diversity early on in the analysis of these games in order to suit readers of either a solid or a more daring style.
There is, at times, little justification behind some subjective choices. In general, I always try to win. It remains true, however, that decisions made over a chess board by professionals may often be subject to external factors such as prizes, tournament situation or prestige. The result of this is that while I believe my decisions to have been rational, I did not take unconsidered risks to “win at all costs”