Answers.Body: <p>In every classic book, you'll have lines that modern engines do not like. I stumbled on the very position when I read the book, and I remember the phrase &quot;dead meat&quot; being extremely cryptic to me.
  However, I found, that Silman's books are much better than, say, Chernev's Logical Chess Move by Move (which I stopped reading precisely because of the bad objective quality).</p>
  <p>It is very good that you check everything with an engine, that you do not understand. However, even if a modern engine considers a variation better than Silman, <strong>it is still very valuable to read and understand Silman's annotations</strong>, because you'll learn something about <strong>practical</strong> &quot;human&quot; moves and <strong>how to generally think about positions</strong>, even if <em>concretely</em>, a certain other variation might work slightly better. Often, these better variations are hard to assess for humans correctly, because a lot of complications are to be considered or a great calculation depth is needed to see the point. In short, they are impractical, and it's hard to deduct a general strategic pattern/rule from these moves. The goal of &quot;How to reassess your chess&quot; is not to make stockfish-like calculation machines out of you, but to teach you strategic concepts, and his moves are always &quot;good enough&quot; for practical play and learning strategic ideas.
  Especially in a book about strategy, there will be alternatives and multiple possible avenues, but he chose one specific line to demonstrate an idea to you. Of course, you may not <em>have</em> to maneuver your knight to that juicy outpost, for example, but it's pretty good to do it and he can prove his point that you sometimes can and should invest the time to get your pieces to good squares.
  Yes, there may be another variation the computer might play, but you wouldn't have learned the concept.<br />
  In a few years, a new chess engine might laugh at your Stockfish 15, just as Stockfish 15 now laughs at the engines Silman used to write his books.
  <strong>The strategic principles, however, stay</strong>. When you find an example, where Silman is very wrong objectively, you should of course skip this particular example or not take it too gravely (in the example, the move is so impractical for Black that even an International Master would refrain from doing it (even if objectively, the ?? may be wrong, it may be correct practically..).
  This is the exception in this book, anyhow.</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>Should I throw the PDF right now?</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>Yes, but only for you to read the hard copy. Please buy the book if you can afford it. There are no legitimate (scanned) PDFs from Silman's works. But I would keep reading because you can still learn a lot from Silman.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-10-26T17:48:57.037Z
Answers.Text: `Please buy the book if you can afford it` It's impossible for some poor countries in Asia (like mine). So most of the time, I have to read PDF which I also hate but .................
Answers.UserDisplayName: Billy Istiak
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-10-25T22:48:01.307Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-10-26T12:00:25.380Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2022-10-26T12:00:25.380Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Hauptideal
Body: <pre><code>[FEN &quot;2nr1r2/1pp1q1pk/2n1bp1p/p3p3/4P2N/2P1N1P1/PP2QPBP/3R1RK1 b - - 0 1&quot;]
  
  1... Bxa2 2. Bh3 Nb6 (2... Nd6 3. Rxd6 cxd6 4. Bf5+ Kg8 5. Ng6 Qf7 6. Nxf8 Qxf8)
  </code></pre>
  <p>I found the above position in <em>How to Reassess Your Chess</em> by Jeremy Silman. He said that after 1...Bxa2 2. Bh3 Black is suddenly dead meat. But according to Stockfish, 1...Bxa2 is the best move.</p>
  <p>Why did Silman think Bxa2 is bad?</p>
  <p>Silman wrote in the starting page that he used Fritz and Deep Blue. They are not better than Stockfish as everyone knows. But Silman also added that he got help of some IM and GM. Also, he analyzed the positions.</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/BjjPM.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/BjjPM.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  <p>Instead his continuation was 1...Nb6 2. Nd5 Bxd5 (Stockfish suggests Qf7. As a human, I also don't like Knight on d5 so I will also consider taking it with the bishop since knight take d5 is blunder cause exd5 forks bishop and knight) 3. exd5</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-10-25T17:27:34.957Z
Comments.Text: Should I throw the PDF right now? Or, as an intermediate I should study the whole book then throw it out?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Billy Istiak
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-10-26T09:46:14.263Z
Comments.Text: "Engine agreement" is not a great measurement of the quality of a book. Engines assume perfect play which is not to be expected in realisitc play. Some +0.5 positions are extremely complicated to defend and offer great winning chances. Others are basically dead draws. After Bxa2 Black has a very hard time in this position.
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Tags: <analysis><middlegame>
Title: Why Bxa2 is bad according to Silman?
ThreadText: # Why Bxa2 is bad according to Silman?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2022-10-25)
  
  ```
  [FEN "2nr1r2/1pp1q1pk/2n1bp1p/p3p3/4P2N/2P1N1P1/PP2QPBP/3R1RK1 b - - 0 1"]
  
  1... Bxa2 2. Bh3 Nb6 (2... Nd6 3. Rxd6 cxd6 4. Bf5+ Kg8 5. Ng6 Qf7 6. Nxf8 Qxf8)
  
  ```
  
  I found the above position in *How to Reassess Your Chess* by Jeremy Silman. He said that after 1...Bxa2 2. Bh3 Black is suddenly dead meat. But according to Stockfish, 1...Bxa2 is the best move.
  
  Why did Silman think Bxa2 is bad?
  
  Silman wrote in the starting page that he used Fritz and Deep Blue. They are not better than Stockfish as everyone knows. But Silman also added that he got help of some IM and GM. Also, he analyzed the positions.
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/BjjPM.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/BjjPM.png)
  
  Instead his continuation was 1...Nb6 2. Nd5 Bxd5 (Stockfish suggests Qf7. As a human, I also don't like Knight on d5 so I will also consider taking it with the bishop since knight take d5 is blunder cause exd5 forks bishop and knight) 3. exd5
  
  **Tags:** analysis, middlegame
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Should I throw the PDF right now? Or, as an intermediate I should study the whole book then throw it out?  
  > **username_1**: "Engine agreement" is not a great measurement of the quality of a book. Engines assume perfect play which is not to be expected in realisitc play. Some +0.5 positions are extremely complicated to defend and offer great winning chances. Others are basically dead draws. After Bxa2 Black has a very hard time in this position.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2022-10-25. Score: 6
  
  In every classic book, you'll have lines that modern engines do not like. I stumbled on the very position when I read the book, and I remember the phrase "dead meat" being extremely cryptic to me.
  However, I found, that Silman's books are much better than, say, Chernev's Logical Chess Move by Move (which I stopped reading precisely because of the bad objective quality).
  
  It is very good that you check everything with an engine, that you do not understand. However, even if a modern engine considers a variation better than Silman, **it is still very valuable to read and understand Silman's annotations**, because you'll learn something about **practical** "human" moves and **how to generally think about positions**, even if *concretely*, a certain other variation might work slightly better. Often, these better variations are hard to assess for humans correctly, because a lot of complications are to be considered or a great calculation depth is needed to see the point. In short, they are impractical, and it's hard to deduct a general strategic pattern/rule from these moves. The goal of "How to reassess your chess" is not to make stockfish-like calculation machines out of you, but to teach you strategic concepts, and his moves are always "good enough" for practical play and learning strategic ideas.
  Especially in a book about strategy, there will be alternatives and multiple possible avenues, but he chose one specific line to demonstrate an idea to you. Of course, you may not *have* to maneuver your knight to that juicy outpost, for example, but it's pretty good to do it and he can prove his point that you sometimes can and should invest the time to get your pieces to good squares.
  Yes, there may be another variation the computer might play, but you wouldn't have learned the concept.  
  In a few years, a new chess engine might laugh at your Stockfish 15, just as Stockfish 15 now laughs at the engines Silman used to write his books.
  **The strategic principles, however, stay**. When you find an example, where Silman is very wrong objectively, you should of course skip this particular example or not take it too gravely (in the example, the move is so impractical for Black that even an International Master would refrain from doing it (even if objectively, the ?? may be wrong, it may be correct practically..).
  This is the exception in this book, anyhow.
  
  > Should I throw the PDF right now?
  
  Yes, but only for you to read the hard copy. Please buy the book if you can afford it. There are no legitimate (scanned) PDFs from Silman's works. But I would keep reading because you can still learn a lot from Silman.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: `Please buy the book if you can afford it` It's impossible for some poor countries in Asia (like mine). So most of the time, I have to read PDF which I also hate but .................  
  
  ---
  
  