Lesson by Silman

Dear All,

I am working on the game strategy segment under Lessons provided by Chess.com.

During one such lesson Gligoric vs Szabo I tried to make move to resolve the problem and it was shown incorrect by the website.

Interestingly I set up the position in Analysis mode and made the same move. The engine is showing this move as the best move.

I request you all kindly describe the problem 

Who are you going to believe-- Silman or your lying eyes?

I don't recall the lesson. Even though most of the lessons were written 20 years ago, I would bet on Silman.

If you want to follow a system, then believe Silman; make a mental note of this and move on.  Don't fight the system unless you are ready for critical thinking which IMHO most kids aren't.  (I'm assuming that you are a kid because of the forum you posted this in.)

Example: my son memorized the multiplication table, but I tell him to still follow the instructions of this teacher at school which requires him to draw little pictures and count them.

Dear All,

Thank you so much for your expert comments. 

Mr mgx9600, you are correct. I am a kid and believe when it comes to chess no one is adult enough.

You both have tried to make a superb commentary but failed to understand my question.

I have no doubts regarding the potential of Silman.

I just want a logical explanation of the point I have made.

If you can provide me with that I will be grateful to you.

Regards,

You screen shot resolution is too low for me to read the words.  Stockfish isn't optimal while Silman can be (don't know if he is, but he can be for this problem); therefore, that might explain the difference.  (It is kind of like why Stockfish needs endgame tablebases.)

My answer wasn't directly on your specific problem, but it is an answer to the more general problem of following systems/learning methods.  You should just trust the teacher/go with the flow when you are young (hopefully you've got a good teacher : ) 

 My Dear Friend,

My problem is very much specific.

Please don't generalise this.

Thanks for your time.

Regards,

Arvind

Silman normally gives reasons for his moves.  Please let us know why you think that Ba6 was a good move. (It doesn't have to be lengthy variations. On the other hand, it should be more than it "just felt good".)

I can now see that the computer says Ba6 and gives some long 10 move variation.

However, the point of the lesson was understanding strategy and if you are to get anything out of this, it would be very interesting to learn how much thought was behind your move.

Silman introduces the position by saying, "The advantages of both sides are rather clearly portrayed: White has two connected passed pawns on the queenside while Black enjoys a majority of pawns in the center. Whose pawns will prove stronger? Is it just a race of pawns or are there other strategies involved? These are the questions that must be answered if either side is to prove successful. Svetozar Gligoric (playing White) was the top Yugoslav Grandmaster for many decades. In the 1960's he was one of a handful of non- Soviet players (along with Fischer, Portisch, and Larsen) who could consider themselves real World Championship candidates. Laszlo Szabo is one of the greatest players to ever come out of Hungary. Mainly an attacking player, here we see that his understanding of positional chess was also at a high level."

You're trying to use an engine to solve a strategic problem.  

The first thing you have to understand is that this is a "strategic" problem, and not a tactic, so an engine is not always going to give you the correct response.

Lets look at your move, and hopefully we both can learn something. 

...Ba6 Yea it stops the pawn, but it also ties down a piece to nothing but defense.  That's not what your pieces are meant to be used for if all possible.

White has 2 passed pawns, space advantage, and more active pieces.  Ask yourself: "How does my move solve any, or all of these issues?"

Now...this is just my opinion, and hopefully someone smarter will chime in.  But this is what i would play:

1...Ra6  Now you're threatening the undefended bishop (One of the two defenders of the passed pawns)

Now white has a choice.  Defend, retreat, counterattack.  Lets look at each.

Defend with 2.Ra1 Ra3 3.Ra3 Nb4 Now black has taken care of whites passed pawns, has the bishop pair, and now his own passed d-pawn is looking good.

Retreat with 2.Bc1 Now the underdefended (yea...i made up a word) b-pawn is weak, attacked, and there are many different ways to go about this line which i have no desire to type that much.

Counterattack with?  Nothing.

To be fair, @IMBacon, OP is trying to use the computer to validate the answer he gave in the Gligoric-Szabo lesson, which Silman didn't like as much as the actual 15..Bd7 move played by Szabo.

Silman said of 15.. Ba6, "Black must find a way to blockade the White passed pawns. Your move is clearly not the best way to achieve this goal."

Silman didn't like your move either @IMBacon. He said of Ra8, "1...Ra8 is nothing more than a one-move attack against the a3-Bishop. After 2.Bc1 the White pawns will be ready for action."

Therefore, I go back to what I said before-  what matters is the reasons OP had for picking 15..Ba6.  I think it unlikely he saw 10 moves deep.

I get what youre saying, but engines are not the be all, end all to chess.  Their are just some things they do not see, or see well.  Especially when it comes to things strategic.  I was in no way saying the OP was wrong for using an engine, i was just pointing out they dont always work.

I still like my move.  Not saying its right, I just like it :-)

I like Ba6 because it stops b5 for tactical reasons (there are Qa5 ideas) and puts the bishop on an open diagonal. It looks much more active than Bd7 and also doesn't get in the way of black's queen, which means that the centre is better defended. I would have expected it to be a "grey" move.

Thank you guys.