Answers.Body: <blockquote>
    <p>a) Is 2. Nh4 a threat?</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>No, because black can play 2. .. Be4 which makes the knight on h4 look a bit silly. Note that 3. f3 does not work because of 3. ... Bxd5 and if 4. Qxd5 Rxe3</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>b) In the game Karpov-Kasparov, White played 2. 0-0 (after 1... Bf5) Nd7 3. h3 Nb6 4. g4 Bd7. Should Karpov have played 2. h3 instead?</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Probably it would lead to the same position since white will certainly want to castle sooner or later and black does not have many alternatives either.</p>
  
  <p>Why do you think Karpov should have played 2. h3?</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-20T20:16:34.423Z
Answers.Text: First, 2. Nh4 Be4 3. c4 Qxd2 4. Kxd2. Secondly, 2. h3 with the threat of 3. g4, which prevents 2... Nd7.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jossie Calderon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-20T23:57:51.473Z
Answers.Text: @JossieCalderon: First 4. ...Bf6 should save the bishop on e4 from being caught. Secondly: How does 2. h3 prevent 2...Nd7? After 3. g4 black can still play 3...Be4, no?
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-21T01:20:33.743Z
Answers.Text: Yeah, then White has won the bishop pair. How has this improved Black's position? And secondly, 4. 0-0 and White has no complications.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jossie Calderon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-21T13:03:25.750Z
Answers.Text: Firstly, I have no idea why this answer was downvoted to begin with. Secondly, @JossieCalderon, 1...Bf5 2.h3 Nd7 3.g4?! Be4 4.0-0 c4! and suddenly white finds it awkward to deal with the threat of ...Bxd5, since 5.Bxc4?? just drops the knight on f3. And note that if white instead goes 4.c4 then black just trades queens: 4...Qxd2+ 5.Kxd2 b5!, and white's king is left quite exposed. This is why 0-0 has to be played before the push g2-g4: white wants to answer ...Be4 with c4, and wants to recapture on d2 with the knight.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-20T20:11:48.120Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-10-20T20:11:48.120Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.Body: <p>Of course it is absolutely playable -- Kasparov played it against Karpov!
  2...h3 doesn't improve for White as the comments have noted.  As for Nh4 -- you are misplacing the Knight, besides Be4, Black could even play Bd7-b5.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-22T00:28:09.087Z
Answers.Text: Just because a grandmaster plays a move against another grandmaster **does not** mean it is playable. Anand played 26. a4?? in a game against Carlsen.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jossie Calderon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-22T00:44:22.137Z
Answers.Text: These aren't just 2 GMs, they are two world champions at the top of their games. Sure, even the best blunder, but this position is likely still in Kasparov's preparation.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ywapom
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-23T04:32:00.650Z
Answers.Text: Check out the No True Scotsman's Fallacy.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jossie Calderon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-23T18:14:34.917Z
Answers.Text: @JossieCalderon Not sure what this answer has to do with the No True Scotsman's Fallacy. Are you sure that you're not referring to the Appeal to Authority Fallacy, which I'd agree this answer is an example of.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-24T00:58:56.490Z
Answers.Text: @Scounged Originally Ywapom appealed to authority when he implied this move is playable because a grandmaster played it. Then the No True Scotsman fallacy was invoked when he mentioned these weren't just any grandmasters - these were world champions!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jossie Calderon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-24T07:36:05.507Z
Answers.Text: @JossieCalderon Don't really see it tbh; there's no mention that "no true world champion ever plays bad moves" or anything of a similar nature, which would indicate the no true scotsman. If anything, it's an appeal to even stronger authority in the comments.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-24T15:44:40.847Z
Answers.Text: @Scounged replace world champion with "true grandmaster".
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jossie Calderon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-24T21:45:28.173Z
Answers.Text: @JossieCalderon The term "no world champion ever plays bad moves" or anything of a similar nature, is nowhere to be found either. Note the "Sure, even the best blunder"; it's important, since a world champion would definitely be considered as the best. And since the best can blunder, by admission, and the world champ is the best, the no true scotsman has in fact not been committed.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-25T03:26:03.253Z
Answers.Text: @Scounged The claim "These aren't just 2 GMs, they are two world champions at the top of their games" bothers me.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jossie Calderon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-25T08:40:32.057Z
Answers.Text: @JossieCalderon Sure, it doesn't really address your initial concern very well.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-25T09:42:36.597Z
Answers.Text: @Scounged Burden of proof lies on you. Why doesn't it address my concern? If you need more support, you can replace world champion with "true grandmaster".
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jossie Calderon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-25T09:59:03.983Z
Answers.Text: @JossieCalderon  I just agreed with you that Ywapom's comment didn't really adress your concern with his answer in a good way. What is it that you think I need to prove exactly? That the answer has nothing to do with "no true scotsman"? Because I've already outlined why that is the case.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-25T21:38:56.847Z
Answers.Text: @Scounged I talked to university professors that specialize in Philosophy (such as Tracie Mahaffey, Robyn Waller) about this situation today, and they agree with me. Now that's an appeal to authority ;)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jossie Calderon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-25T22:04:03.720Z
Answers.Text: @JossieCalderon which is why I can easily dismiss your latest comment as irrelevant ;)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-26T19:45:34.807Z
Answers.Text: @Scounged it's not a fallacy because they are actually authorities. (The former possesses a Doctorate in Philosophy.)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jossie Calderon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-26T19:59:13.103Z
Answers.Text: @JossieCalderon And Garry Kasparov - arguably the best chess player ever - is not an authority in determining whether a chess move is good or not? Man, your last comment made my day. And I have yet to understand what they agree with you about. If they agree with you on the "no true scotsman", I am absolutely certain that 1. they aren't seasoned chess players, and 2. that you are absolutely terrible at explaining what GM, world champion, etc. actually means.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-21T21:25:13.913Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-10-21T21:25:13.913Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ywapom
Body: <p>In the below position, black is about to play 1... Bf5, developing the bishop to eventually play Nd7-Nb6.</p>
  
  <p>a) Is 2. Nh4 a threat?</p>
  
  <p>b) In the game Karpov-Kasparov, White played 2. 0-0 (after 1... Bf5) Nd7 3. h3 Nb6 4. g4 Bd7. Should Karpov have played 2. h3 instead?</p>
  
  <pre><code>rnb1r1k1/pp3pbp/6p1/q1pP4/8/2P1BN2/P2QBPPP/2R1K2R b K - 2 13
  </code></pre>
  
Tags: <grunfeld-defense><development>
Title: Is 1... Bf5 playable in this position?
ThreadText: # Is 1... Bf5 playable in this position?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2017-10-20)
  
  In the below position, black is about to play 1... Bf5, developing the bishop to eventually play Nd7-Nb6.
  a) Is 2. Nh4 a threat?
  b) In the game Karpov-Kasparov, White played 2. 0-0 (after 1... Bf5) Nd7 3. h3 Nb6 4. g4 Bd7. Should Karpov have played 2. h3 instead?
  rnb1r1k1/pp3pbp/6p1/q1pP4/8/2P1BN2/P2QBPPP/2R1K2R b K - 2 13
  
  **Tags:** grunfeld-defense, development
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2017-10-20. Score: 1
  
  > a) Is 2. Nh4 a threat?
  
  No, because black can play 2. .. Be4 which makes the knight on h4 look a bit silly. Note that 3. f3 does not work because of 3. ... Bxd5 and if 4. Qxd5 Rxe3
  
  > b) In the game Karpov-Kasparov, White played 2. 0-0 (after 1... Bf5) Nd7 3. h3 Nb6 4. g4 Bd7. Should Karpov have played 2. h3 instead?
  
  Probably it would lead to the same position since white will certainly want to castle sooner or later and black does not have many alternatives either.
  
  Why do you think Karpov should have played 2. h3?
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: First, 2. Nh4 Be4 3. c4 Qxd2 4. Kxd2. Secondly, 2. h3 with the threat of 3. g4, which prevents 2... Nd7.  
  > **username_1**: @JossieCalderon: First 4. ...Bf6 should save the bishop on e4 from being caught. Secondly: How does 2. h3 prevent 2...Nd7? After 3. g4 black can still play 3...Be4, no?  
  > **username_0**: Yeah, then White has won the bishop pair. How has this improved Black's position? And secondly, 4. 0-0 and White has no complications.  
  > **username_2**: Firstly, I have no idea why this answer was downvoted to begin with. Secondly, @JossieCalderon, 1...Bf5 2.h3 Nd7 3.g4?! Be4 4.0-0 c4! and suddenly white finds it awkward to deal with the threat of ...Bxd5, since 5.Bxc4?? just drops the knight on f3. And note that if white instead goes 4.c4 then black just trades queens: 4...Qxd2+ 5.Kxd2 b5!, and white's king is left quite exposed. This is why 0-0 has to be played before the push g2-g4: white wants to answer ...Be4 with c4, and wants to recapture on d2 with the knight.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2017-10-21. Score: 1
  
  Of course it is absolutely playable -- Kasparov played it against Karpov!
  2...h3 doesn't improve for White as the comments have noted. As for Nh4 -- you are misplacing the Knight, besides Be4, Black could even play Bd7-b5.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Just because a grandmaster plays a move against another grandmaster **does not** mean it is playable. Anand played 26. a4?? in a game against Carlsen.  
  > **username_3**: These aren't just 2 GMs, they are two world champions at the top of their games. Sure, even the best blunder, but this position is likely still in Kasparov's preparation.  
  > **username_0**: Check out the No True Scotsman's Fallacy.  
  > **username_2**: @JossieCalderon Not sure what this answer has to do with the No True Scotsman's Fallacy. Are you sure that you're not referring to the Appeal to Authority Fallacy, which I'd agree this answer is an example of.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 Originally username_3 appealed to authority when he implied this move is playable because a grandmaster played it. Then the No True Scotsman fallacy was invoked when he mentioned these weren't just any grandmasters - these were world champions!  
  > **username_2**: @JossieCalderon Don't really see it tbh; there's no mention that "no true world champion ever plays bad moves" or anything of a similar nature, which would indicate the no true scotsman. If anything, it's an appeal to even stronger authority in the comments.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 replace world champion with "true grandmaster".  
  > **username_2**: @JossieCalderon The term "no world champion ever plays bad moves" or anything of a similar nature, is nowhere to be found either. Note the "Sure, even the best blunder"; it's important, since a world champion would definitely be considered as the best. And since the best can blunder, by admission, and the world champ is the best, the no true scotsman has in fact not been committed.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 The claim "These aren't just 2 GMs, they are two world champions at the top of their games" bothers me.  
  > **username_2**: @JossieCalderon Sure, it doesn't really address your initial concern very well.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 Burden of proof lies on you. Why doesn't it address my concern? If you need more support, you can replace world champion with "true grandmaster".  
  > **username_2**: @JossieCalderon  I just agreed with you that username_3's comment didn't really adress your concern with his answer in a good way. What is it that you think I need to prove exactly? That the answer has nothing to do with "no true scotsman"? Because I've already outlined why that is the case.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 I talked to university professors that specialize in Philosophy (such as Tracie Mahaffey, Robyn Waller) about this situation today, and they agree with me. Now that's an appeal to authority ;)  
  > **username_2**: @JossieCalderon which is why I can easily dismiss your latest comment as irrelevant ;)  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 it's not a fallacy because they are actually authorities. (The former possesses a Doctorate in Philosophy.)  
  > **username_2**: @JossieCalderon And Garry Kasparov - arguably the best chess player ever - is not an authority in determining whether a chess move is good or not? Man, your last comment made my day. And I have yet to understand what they agree with you about. If they agree with you on the "no true scotsman", I am absolutely certain that 1. they aren't seasoned chess players, and 2. that you are absolutely terrible at explaining what GM, world champion, etc. actually means.  
  
  ---
  
  