A Question of Modern Theory by Lipnitsky states either a position is critical or settled. Puzzle calculation assumes everything is critical. Most amateurs, including me, sometimes don't understand a position is critical (from probably bad thinking habits) and then don't even check for answers properly to begin with. I think the most shining examples of this is missing short calculation solutions (mates in 1 or 2 or maybe pawn moves of some some sort)... Can Kabadayi has a course on that, and Polgar's 5334 book is for it. There's also pattern books for positional solutions. So I'm not quite sure if calling it practical calculation is correct, because they're still puzzle solutions (just ones that we don't train with online tactics trainers unless you are aware of this deficiency).
2160 USCF here, I noticed Bxc5 falls to Bxb5, but gave into my stubborn impulses and wanted to play Ke7! with rapid development. I'm sure I'm just down a pawn here with a poorly placed king, but thought it might be interesting. I see Bxf3 in the comments but i don't want to give up my nice bishop :( Perhaps some blitz thinking from me, questionable long term prospects to ask white some simple questions.
Great position though to highlight the issue with puzzle only solving! I think this is a skill that can be trained via going over games between players slightly higher than your rating, and hiding the next moves, and trying to 'solve' the situations that aren't theory or instantly clear.
Nbd7 b4 and Bxc5 Bxb5 look problematic, so maybe b4? b4 Rd1 Nbd7 or Qc7 looks holding and the rest of the moves can be met by Bxc5. b4 a3!? with the idea of a5 Bb5+, however it doesn't look too dangerous and the might even be the option of Bxc5 ab Bxb4. b4 a4 a5 also seems fine.
I think we should play 1… b4 = in order to be able to safely recapture the c5 pawn. The problem with 1…Bxc5 2. Bxb5+ axb5 3. Qxb5+ with both bishops hanging +-
...b4 was played in the game, and is certainly playable but not the cleanest I would say.
Important to see that ...Bxc5 is a mistake, though as you pointed out.
I would say 1...Bxf3 is the cleanest, with the point 2.gxf3 Bxc5 is now fine, and 2.Qxf3 can be met by ...Nbd7!. c5 is hanging, and something like 3.c6? or 3.b4? gets hit by ...Ne5 (although in the case of 3.b4 Ne5 4.Qb7 Nxd3 5.Rd1 even that is still a bit murky)
Cheng's Practical Chess Exercises is one of the few books that offers some relevant training here
A Question of Modern Theory by Lipnitsky states either a position is critical or settled. Puzzle calculation assumes everything is critical. Most amateurs, including me, sometimes don't understand a position is critical (from probably bad thinking habits) and then don't even check for answers properly to begin with. I think the most shining examples of this is missing short calculation solutions (mates in 1 or 2 or maybe pawn moves of some some sort)... Can Kabadayi has a course on that, and Polgar's 5334 book is for it. There's also pattern books for positional solutions. So I'm not quite sure if calling it practical calculation is correct, because they're still puzzle solutions (just ones that we don't train with online tactics trainers unless you are aware of this deficiency).
2160 USCF here, I noticed Bxc5 falls to Bxb5, but gave into my stubborn impulses and wanted to play Ke7! with rapid development. I'm sure I'm just down a pawn here with a poorly placed king, but thought it might be interesting. I see Bxf3 in the comments but i don't want to give up my nice bishop :( Perhaps some blitz thinking from me, questionable long term prospects to ask white some simple questions.
Great position though to highlight the issue with puzzle only solving! I think this is a skill that can be trained via going over games between players slightly higher than your rating, and hiding the next moves, and trying to 'solve' the situations that aren't theory or instantly clear.
Nbd7 b4 and Bxc5 Bxb5 look problematic, so maybe b4? b4 Rd1 Nbd7 or Qc7 looks holding and the rest of the moves can be met by Bxc5. b4 a3!? with the idea of a5 Bb5+, however it doesn't look too dangerous and the might even be the option of Bxc5 ab Bxb4. b4 a4 a5 also seems fine.
1...Nc6? (prevents ...b4 and Ne5). We can get the c5 pawn back later hopefully with ...Be7 and Nfd7 if needed
Does ...Nc6 actually prevent b4?
Hmmm... 1...Nc6 2.b4 Nxb4 3.Bxb5+ Nc6 back 4.Ne5 axb5 ?
I think we should play 1… b4 = in order to be able to safely recapture the c5 pawn. The problem with 1…Bxc5 2. Bxb5+ axb5 3. Qxb5+ with both bishops hanging +-
1… Bxf3 Qxf3 2. Qxd3? Qxa8 +-
...b4 was played in the game, and is certainly playable but not the cleanest I would say.
Important to see that ...Bxc5 is a mistake, though as you pointed out.
I would say 1...Bxf3 is the cleanest, with the point 2.gxf3 Bxc5 is now fine, and 2.Qxf3 can be met by ...Nbd7!. c5 is hanging, and something like 3.c6? or 3.b4? gets hit by ...Ne5 (although in the case of 3.b4 Ne5 4.Qb7 Nxd3 5.Rd1 even that is still a bit murky)