Are any books worth reading if they weren't vetted by an engine?

It has already been determined that the game is not entered correctly. Read the thread. 

The game is from the Moscow 1971 tournament. Not sure they played bullet in that tournament. 

I'm not writing off all books, I'm just wondering how often my son is going to ignore the lesson because the engine says the lesson doesn't apply in this case.  I wasn't actually going to use that book with him, I just had a copy available.  And I was wondering what the analysis looked like in a recent chess book (the Alburt being old and based on Blokh) when checked by an engine, because I wanted to avoid the moment of "screw that" from my 9 year old.  

In grandmaster chess, it's losing after 12 Nf5. But for for kids around 1500, like my son, it's not losing yet. At his level, the game isn't lost (probably, kids can still blow a rook advantage occasionally at this level) until exf5.  And pushing the h pawn or moving the Queen to the fifth rank instead (as the engine suggests) are not "impractical" moves and they do limit the damage.

I thought you were asking this question because you wanted to know whether more experienced players have found books to be pedagogically useful in the era of engines and why. But if you’re going to dismiss the forum’s (unusually uniform) answer, it seems like a waste of time. 

What is it you want us to say?

(P.S. You’re still missing the point of what the authors are using this game to do.)

So, at any rate, is the Manual of Positional Chess a good buy for your 9 year old son?

No.

Are there other serious chess books that he would benefit from?

Yes, there are many great chess books out there but it is hard to say if a nine year old will benefit from any of them. Does he spend time seriously reading anything?

I would stick with the puzzle books. If he spends enough time on the puzzles to be invested in the answer enough to check it out with an engine afterwards, so much the better.

I see he is up to 28 on Puzzle Rush. That has to be very good for a 9 year old.  I know it's better than my best (26).

Are you under the impression that books are obliged to identify defensive ideas that might work "for kids around 1500"? That book was not written "for kids around 1500".

"The book is aimed at players who are already around first category strength [Translator's note: Approximately 2000-2200 Elo] but some examples will also be useful to players of a higher standard." - page 8

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9040.pdf

Is this simply a misperception by you instead of an error by the book? Was the book doing anything more than reporting a move that was played in the game?

Yeah, that's a pretty weird idea.  Annotations aren't an information dump of every possible line.  Black had lots of better opportunities for a better game earlier on, and the authors give them.

But I actually think 1500 players could profit from that book (though perhaps the fact that it's a kid complicates things -- books require patience that kids don't always have.)  The ideas in the annotations I saw should be perfectly clear to a C-level player.

I also think the OP is probably underestimating 1500 players if he thinks that the game is still significantly up for grabs after 12 Nf5 Qc5.  After 13 Nd6+ (a completely natural and easy-to-find reply), I'd give a 1500 player a better than 80% chance of converting as White against an opponent of equal strength.  In fact, I'd give them even better odds of winning after 12 ... Qc5 than after 12 ... fxe5, where they'd have to find the far-from-obvious Qd6-followed-by-Bd2-b4 idea.

To me, 80% is not completely winning.  It's certainly not worth resigning yet.  And I'd expect that game would be lost 20% of the time and drawn some too among scholastic players.  

You’re still missing the point. 

Do you think that books are obliged to identify defensive ideas that might work 20% of the time for scholastic players? That book was not written for scholastic players.

"The book is aimed at players who are already around first category strength [Translator's note: Approximately 2000-2200 Elo] but some examples will also be useful to players of a higher standard." - page 8

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9040.pdf

Was the book presenting 12...exf5 as if it was "a consequence of 9...Bb4" or was it simply reporting 12...exf5 as a move that was played in the game?

As far as the analysis--it says Nf5 is winning, but the engine only gives it 1.4.  In scholastic chess, 1.4 is not winning.  Only after exf5 does the eval give a 3.9 point advantage.

It seems plain as day--a move that loses a half point gets a question mark, but the moves that lose 1.2 and 2.5 don't merit comment.  Even if the basic principles espoused in the annotation are correct, this example doesn't show them.  

[by the way ExplodingKittens is me, mistakenly posting from my son's account because we use the same PC]

No they didn't.  Again: "Even when so far behind in development, Black goes after a pawn, and in the process gives up a key piece, the main defender of his dark squares." 

You keep ignoring kindaspongey's excellent point that it would be irresponsible for an annotator to dwell on all the positions that are "only" +1.4.  Here's what Sakaev and Landa write at that moment: "If the knight is not taken, it lands on d6 with decisive effect."  You really object to that (excellently succinct) annotation?  What would you have them write??  (Keep in mind also that there's no pretense that this being annotated as a comprehensive account of the game.  It's annotated around the lesson that this chapter is offering, which has to do with developing pieces.)

But even leaving that aside, you keep saying things that reveal how badly you're misusing engines.  Don't get me wrong, engines are wonderful and invaluable but you can't use them to say, for instance, that a position is, at such-and-such level, winning at +3.9 but unclear at +1.4.  You have to look at the positions.  And, for the 1500 level you're talkign about, you've actually got it exactly backwards.  Here's your "indecisive" position (your +1.4 line, though my engine evaluates White as being a bit better):

Here, Black has serious problems and very little to compensate for them.  A 1500-level player won't always win this, but it's much, much easier for White to play, and they'll win in most cases.

On the other hand, here's your "winning" +3.9 position:

Yes, if White plays eactly the right moves, he has a clear win here.  But the winning moves are actually very difficult to find, and I'd actually be surprised if many 1500 players found them over the board.  This isn't one of those easy sacrifice-check-check-checkmate combinations.  Sure, the initial Re1+ is intuitive enough, but after Be6, it's very hard for White to find a plan that gives clear compensation for the piece.  Tal's brilliant combination of Qd6 plus a neat bishop manouver is a good example of why they call him the Magician from Riga.  Not many people are giong to find it.  For instance, Uhlmann -- himself a very strong grandmaster -- didn't.  Karolyi's edition of Tal's collected games reports that Uhlmann spent an hour and fifty minues deciding whether to take the knight,  The fact that he did take it means that in all that time, he couldn't find a clear winning line for White in this position.  Yet you think a 1500 player would?

Summing up: this is not the right way to use engines.  There are things they can do wonderfully.  Often they're even useful in conjunction with books. But your posts in this thread are showing how easy it is to be betwitched by their numerical evaluations and miss out on the pedigocially far more useful insights that human analysis can offer.

I will concede I’m out of my depth in evaluating what you say, tlay80, though I understand the point and it makes sense. Thank you for going through it in detail.

I still have to point out that if we go to the headline annotation, 9 gets a question mark and 11 and 12, which are worse, don’t. I can possibly concede the argument that 12 shouldn’t get one if a GM took two hours and didn’t see it—although the opposing GM of course did. I’ll give the position to my son and have him play it out against the engine.  It’s probably beyond him, but it will be interesting to see. 

eks74071 wrote: "As far as the analysis--it says Nf5 is winning, but the engine only gives it 1.4.  In scholastic chess, 1.4 is not winning. ..."

eks74071 wrote: "... I understand the point and it makes sense. …"

Are you now no longer claiming that the book presented 12...exf5 as if it was a consequence of 9...Bb5 ? Are you now accepting that a book can be for "approximately 2000-2200 Elo" players and has no obligation to be concerned about what is winning in scholastic chess?

Do you feel qualified to judge what a GM didn't see? Does a GM necessarily want to go along with machine evaluations when making a move choice? Is a GM perhaps making an estimate of what move has the best chance against a human GM opponent? Does a machine know human GM psychology?

In any event, does a comment on 12...exf5 necessarily have anything to do with what the authors were trying to explain?

"... I'm a duffer …" - eks74071

Are you confident that you know what is successfully shown to a 2000-2200 reader? Are you under the impression that authors are obliged to use annotation to designate the moves that make the biggest change in a machine's evaluation? Might they perhaps be more concerned with what is most helpful in an intended communication to a 2000-2200 reader?

"The book is aimed at players who are already around first category strength [Translator's note: Approximately 2000-2200 Elo] but some examples will also be useful to players of a higher standard." - page 8

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9040.pdf

"... I'm a duffer …" - eks74071

That's a much better use of an engine!

This is where understanding engine analysis is important when using them.  You only need 1 more pawn to win a game (as long as it is in the right place).  So, 1.0 can be a winning advantage.  That said, even engines have a margin for error.  The old rule of thumb was to use a half pawn as the margin of error, so anything that evaluated as equal or better than 1.5 for either side would be considered winning for that side.  1.4 is close enough that you can likely consider it winning as the side on the other end of that likely has a difficult game to play just to stay in it (and newer engines have a smaller margin of error).

Note that the classification of "winning" or "better" does not change with the level of play.  That is, those evaluations are objective (or at least, as objective as they can be).  If you ever watch Svidler or Yasser give commentary, you'll often hear them say something along the lines of "White is up a pawn, but black's position is so bad it is incredibly difficult to play so white is virtually winning here."  If you turn on the engine analysis, it may even evaluate the position as only +/- 1.1; however, if you have to make 15-20 perfect moves just to maintain your defense, you are effectively lost (even Super-GMs do not like playing those types of positions!).