Answers.Body: <p>Mihail Marin simply missed that 1.Ng6 is winning, even faster than 1.Qg6. During opening analysis, and even during a game, sometimes when you find a satisfying continuation you forget to follow Lasker's advice and look for an even stronger one.</p>
  <p>This is a slight mistake in his analysis, but his evaluation of the variation remains correct (White is winning, even faster than he thought) and I see no reason not to continue studying his book and learning from it.</p>
  <p>No chess book is completely void of analysis mistakes. If this is the worst one in the book, then the work is still very trustworthy. However, I encourage you to keep your good habit of checking the author analysis, with your own mind and with engine: First, to prevent falling for a bigger hole in a flawed variation if there is one ; Second, to better understand and remember the positions.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-08-07T12:07:51.863Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-08-08T08:39:28.857Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-08-08T08:39:28.857Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Evargalo
Body: <p>In the book English opening volume 1 by Mihail Marin at this position</p>
  <pre><code>[fen &quot;3nrrk1/bppq2p1/p4p1p/2Pp4/1P1P3N/P1BQ2P1/5PKP/4RR2 w - - 2 21&quot;]
  
  1. Qg6 (1. Ng6)
  </code></pre>
  <p>He suggests Qg6 whereas stockfish suggests Ng6 and evaluation drops from +4.3 to +1.1 after Qg6. I know this is analysed by humans but I am confused about reading rest of the book because I cant trust it now. Any suggestions?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-08-07T10:47:31.203Z
Comments.Text: What line does Marin give after 1. Qg6 Qf7 (the "rescuing" move according to Stockfish), if he gives one?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-08-07T11:31:48.263Z
Comments.Text: Yes it continues as 1.Qg6 Qf7 2.Qf5 +-
Comments.UserDisplayName: Shreyash Talpade
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-08-07T12:04:36.000Z
Comments.Text: Humans are not infallible. Neither is Stockfish (an engine five years from now will probably laugh at many of Stockfish's evaluations. What's weird about that? Don't worry, if all the mistakes you make are only as bad as Mr. Marin's, you won't have a bad chess career
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-08-09T03:29:03.020Z
Comments.Text: @David Five years from now? Uhhh... Alexa, when was Alpha Zero released?
Comments.UserDisplayName: corsiKa
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-08-09T13:52:12.103Z
Comments.Text: @corsiKa good luck trying to install it on your computer
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Tags: <analysis><theory><stockfish><books><english-opening>
Title: Stockfish is considering a move in a book by GM Mihail Marin as a blunder
ThreadText: # Stockfish is considering a move in a book by GM Mihail Marin as a blunder
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-08-07)
  
  In the book English opening volume 1 by Mihail Marin at this position
  [fen "3nrrk1/bppq2p1/p4p1p/2Pp4/1P1P3N/P1BQ2P1/5PKP/4RR2 w - - 2 21"]
  
  1. Qg6 (1. Ng6)
  
  He suggests Qg6 whereas stockfish suggests Ng6 and evaluation drops from +4.3 to +1.1 after Qg6. I know this is analysed by humans but I am confused about reading rest of the book because I cant trust it now. Any suggestions?
  
  **Tags:** analysis, theory, stockfish, books, english-opening
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: What line does Marin give after 1. Qg6 Qf7 (the "rescuing" move according to Stockfish), if he gives one?  
  > **username_0**: Yes it continues as 1.Qg6 Qf7 2.Qf5 +-  
  > **username_2**: Humans are not infallible. Neither is Stockfish (an engine five years from now will probably laugh at many of Stockfish's evaluations. What's weird about that? Don't worry, if all the mistakes you make are only as bad as Mr. Marin's, you won't have a bad chess career  
  > **username_3**: @username_2 Five years from now? Uhhh... Alexa, when was Alpha Zero released?  
  > **username_2**: @username_3 good luck trying to install it on your computer  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2020-08-07. Score: 34
  
  Mihail Marin simply missed that 1.Ng6 is winning, even faster than 1.Qg6. During opening analysis, and even during a game, sometimes when you find a satisfying continuation you forget to follow Lasker's advice and look for an even stronger one.
  
  This is a slight mistake in his analysis, but his evaluation of the variation remains correct (White is winning, even faster than he thought) and I see no reason not to continue studying his book and learning from it.
  
  No chess book is completely void of analysis mistakes. If this is the worst one in the book, then the work is still very trustworthy. However, I encourage you to keep your good habit of checking the author analysis, with your own mind and with engine: First, to prevent falling for a bigger hole in a flawed variation if there is one ; Second, to better understand and remember the positions.
  
  
  ---
  
  