<wals>
personally, i almost immediately saw Bxh6 as a 'potential' move, then after analyzing it, I saw it was not tactically failing and black is in real trouble, then I looked for mate, saw a queen sacrifice (as one option) but after I saw Bh4, I started to re-evaluate and saw that white would come out in a dominant position anyway, hence black resigning.

in a real game, this analysis will typically come quickly especially with adrenaline pumping (dont ask). Seeing Bh4 would definitely not take you 5 minutes of thought, especially since black is practically forced to make the trades due to discovered attacks on his king eliminating other possible lines.

Even if you missed Bh4, and got surprised after he played it, it would be relatively easy to evaluate how to continue a winning attack.

I see, in absence of arguments, you resort to word games on my username. Grow up.

Your very first post, <Solution for this puzzle: Win a minor piece, NOT mate.> indicates that you did not analyze very deep, or you'd see more than one minor piece.

If you choose to play over resign, the goal in a losing position would be to increase the number of moves interposed in your opponents field, increasing the chances of miscalculation.

You will get no argument from me. The issue is whether or not it needs to be considered explicitly, because it is the best line for Black. My usual formula is "[or drops a P]" (which is exactly what 25...Bh4 does), and I find the formula sufficient in place of many best losing lines. I omitted it today out of haste. I apologize: it's only Tuesday, after all, and I was lulled into a false sense of security.

<jovack> I am sorry for the tone when I said that "this is the way GM's think about chess". I guess it was a bit condescending.

I was a bit annoyed because I felt you were unnecessarily (although subtly) disparaging to chessgames.com and to other people who may not have considered 25...Bh4. I think that others may have picked up this tone in your original post, which I think was also a bit condescending.

I think your attitude got worse after my post (probably because you were upset with my GM comment), and then other people started to express their feelings about your attitude, and everybody seemed to get caught in a negative spiral where all parties made each other more upset and the situation just got out of control.

We are all entitled to express our arguments and criticize one another's arguments.

If you didn't see all black defenses and white's replies you didn't get it.>

When you consider 25.Bxh6, in the immediate sense this gains a pawn and furthers the plan to attack the king by opening him up completely. Hence, the only thing that would justify the move NOT being played is if black can mate, or win material to redress the material balance and compensate for white's huge strategical gain, without getting checkmated in the process.

So the only candidates for black that strictly HAVE to be considered are the one's that mate or attempt to win material. I don't see how 25...Bh4 fits the bill here. Hence I don't think it needs to be considered by white.

I just thought it was wrong to criticize chessgames.com as though they didn't consider 25...Bh4, and I put my argument forward for that.

I also thought it was wrong to chastise people who may not have considered 25...Bh4, and I put my argument forward for that too.

I agree with you that 25...Bh4 obviously loses. However, I don't think that this is the right way to argue that 25...Bh4 doesn't need to be considered, since this argument presupposes that 25...Bh4 is considered and judged to be 'obviously losing'.

My argument is based on the fact that the only responses that white needs to consider are ones that try to get compensation for white's strategical and material advantage. 25...Bh4 doesn't come into consideration for this end.

This observation certainly undermines the notion that 25...Bh4 has some special status when analyzing losing moves.

chessgames pointed out a difficult-to-see line and said that a truly correct solution would have analyzed that line. Not that it's the best line, not that it's the only line, but that it should have been analyzed to justify the bishop sac.