We *don’t* have an threat the kingside. Because threatening Qxh7 ties up our queen and knight, while black can defend against it with only one rook. That’s *bad*. And I don’t see how we can effectively supplement our attack with our rooks or pawns; if we try, black has ample opportunity to counter with his pieces.
Rf1 isn’t as bad as I thought. But it doesn’t do achieve anything except preventing black from moving his f-pawn. Which Qf3 also does. But Qf3 also lets us reposition our queen to a better location. Whereas the rook can’t go anywhere from f1.
IH:
Explain? Because it definitely seems like you “actually” argued for Rf1 in [1157]:Indigo Heron [1170] wrote:@Emp: Keyword in your quote is 'actually'.
<snip>
Indigo Heron [1167] wrote:I never actually argued for Rf1, but anyways...
Also, what happened to the aggression you were so gungho about when you went with Re6 over g4? How is Rf1 more aggressive than Qf3?Indigo Heron [1157] wrote:A draw? I see victory!
There are better moves than Rhe1. We're already covering the rook with the knight.
move: Rf1
Rf1 clears a path for the pawns to move up, and we'll easily take the knight back anyways. Besides, for those who can see a little further, check out the nasty surprise that this move holds in store for Black.
Mastin:
(Forget for a moment how you can’t seem to count to 6.)
Someone suggested that you’ve made a mistake. Or, let’s give you the benefit of the doubt- that you *might* have made a mistake. And this mistake is ridiculously easy to check.
If this were a lynching game, this would voteworthy. You’re not trying for a [town] win. You’re making excuses to cover antitown play.