Answers.Body: <p>Normally a backward pawn is considered a potential weakness since it cannot be defended by other pawns where it stands, and if it's impossible to move the pawn somehow it can become a very serious weakness indeed. But if the backward pawn can sidestep any threat against it by moving forward it may not even be an issue. In many cases, a backward pawn will come under attack by an enemy pawn if it were to move forward, and this is probably what John Nunn meant in the provided text; the "weak" pawn is pushed forward and will be "liquidated" against the enemy pawn.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-11-25T18:38:48.223Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-11-25T18:38:48.223Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Answers.Body: <p>The book is right. In chess, nothing is a weakness if it can't be exploited. In the following world championship game, Black had a backward pawn on d6. However, it was not a weakness.</p>
  
  <p>Note b3, Rad8, Red2, d5!, the d5 push will liquidate everything. That was why Carlsen exchanged the pawn with his c4 pawn immediately.  </p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p><a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1937912" rel="noreferrer">http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1937912</a></p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/zn9zn.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/zn9zn.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-11-26T03:09:18.070Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-11-26T03:09:18.070Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Body: <p>John Nunn mentions the following in <em>Understanding Chess: Move by Move (2002)</em>:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>Pawn weaknesses vary in severity according to two factors: 1) whether there is any possibility of liquidating the weakness, ...</p>
  <p>As an example of the first factor, a backward pawn may not be a real weakness at all if it is impossible to stop the pawn advancing aside another pawn.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>How do these two statements tie hand-in-hand?</p>
  
Tags: <books>
Title: Ambiguity in Text
ThreadText: # Ambiguity in Text
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2018-11-25)
  
  John Nunn mentions the following in *Understanding Chess: Move by Move (2002)*:
  
  > Pawn weaknesses vary in severity according to two factors: 1) whether there is any possibility of liquidating the weakness, ...
  >
  > As an example of the first factor, a backward pawn may not be a real weakness at all if it is impossible to stop the pawn advancing aside another pawn.
  
  How do these two statements tie hand-in-hand?
  
  **Tags:** books
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2018-11-25. Score: 4 | Accepted answer
  
  Normally a backward pawn is considered a potential weakness since it cannot be defended by other pawns where it stands, and if it's impossible to move the pawn somehow it can become a very serious weakness indeed. But if the backward pawn can sidestep any threat against it by moving forward it may not even be an issue. In many cases, a backward pawn will come under attack by an enemy pawn if it were to move forward, and this is probably what John Nunn meant in the provided text; the "weak" pawn is pushed forward and will be "liquidated" against the enemy pawn.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2018-11-26. Score: 6
  
  The book is right. In chess, nothing is a weakness if it can't be exploited. In the following world championship game, Black had a backward pawn on d6. However, it was not a weakness.
  
  Note b3, Rad8, Red2, d5!, the d5 push will liquidate everything. That was why Carlsen exchanged the pawn with his c4 pawn immediately.
  
  > <http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1937912>
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/zn9zn.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/zn9zn.png)
  
  
  ---
  
  