chess evaluation, was silman wrong?

Well i did the chess mentor demo and there was that lecture by Silman, where white has to play something against the Shveshnikov i think it was. Silman said knight to e5 was the best move and Fischer just played a tad unprecise with rook to d1 (because he had to bring it back to a1 later).

Now because of strange coincidence, i saw the exact game in a book russians versus fischer. In the book someone said -i think it was bronstein or a former wc- that the move was brilliant and how he thought about moving the rook back, were fischer answered well if tal can move his rooks back and force why cant i.

the question is, if knight to e5 is the more correct why didnt anyone point it out before and secondly why did they say it was such a good move?? or was silman correct after all and a move can be a bit unprecise but still brilliant.

Yeah, Nf3 to e5 is wayyyy better, threatening Nxc6 AND uncovering the queen that was on g2!! Rd1?? instead allows ...a5 and white is in zugzwang.

We can't really know what you're talking about unless you post a diagram

I strongly disagree with you, Elubas ... and present my vague counter-argument to distract both of us until the OP actually posts something meaningful.

You did not factor the compensation White receives on the Kingside ... not to mention that black is saddled with an isolated rook pawn.  White wins the king-and-pawn endgame for sure, but I'd have to check my calculations.

While I'm here, could somebody tell me why this "not coke, not pepsi" cola  I'm drinking is less fizzy than the cola I drank yesterday?

ok i ment the game fischer against gaida in mar del plata tournament, 1960. Fischer played rook a to d1 and silman said its a tad inaccurate and knight to d5  was better, because with fischers move, he has to move the rook back. 

I wanted to know if Silman was right because in my book no1 mentions silmans move and they gave a ! for moving the rook back and even bronstein said it was such an awesome move

I assume you meant this position right here?

yes i ment that position and fischer played rook to d1 and silman said its a tad incorrect and knight to d5 is better, because fischer later moved the rook back. well in the book russian versus fischer doesnt mention it, they even gave later to rook back to a1 a !. Even Bronstein was interested in that move, wich i cant believe he was if rook to d1 was an inaccuracy. So was silman correct that rook to d1 is a tad inaccurate?

also thanks for putting it up shivsky, that was verry nice

Michael Stean's Simple Chess explains it as follows:

18.Rad1 => The final preparation for Nd5 which if played at once, could be met by 18...Qd4 19.Qxd4 exd4 and Black has good chances to save the endgame as the White e and c pawns are weak"

Now with 18.Rad1 Qd4, I believe white can play Qg3 with tempo and then Nd5 to follow through.

thank you verry much

Wow, Rad1 is indeed very nice! Played for very concrete purposes, shown when Fischer is fine retreating back to a1 once his goal was achieved! I could see why Silman may have missed that, as it's quite a subtle point and it seemed more like Fischer was correcting his mistake, but you always have to be careful when you criticize Fischer -- there is a 99.9% chance you will be wrong! Fischer here plays with the utmost accuracy to avoid compromising his advantage in any way whatsoever!

Thanks for sharing.

In that variation mentioned by Michael Stean, does is provide any insight into this alternate line?

18. Nd5 Qd4

19. Nxf6+ gxf6

20. Qg3+ Kh8

21. Qh4

Silman can be good for introducing weak players to positional chess (like it did for me), but not much more: the problem is he doesn't strive for a lot of accuracy and discourages, in fact, looking for concrete ideas and insists it's all about the plan. Although it is bad to play without any general plan in mind, accuracy is quite important too: whether a plan works or not when stacked against the opponent's often comes down to concrete moves. Still, everyone has lots of trouble finding plans at some point in their career, usually early on, so his work is of some merit. I do believe him to be overrated, though.

Sorry, I shouldn't get into these "teacher reviews" as it's a bit off topic

Thank you all verry much.

In my personal opinion moving the rook back is a great move. Go to this site and make an account for access to free answers and explanations to math problems as well as a quick way to make money for those of you on here who are good with numbers. http://www.slader.com/s/dm5iaWdncw== I'm a real person and this isn't spam, just thought some of you who play the game mathematically might have an interest in a site like this.

well i couldnt follow you, probably because im too tired right now. but its funny since i heard fischer say how great morphy was, i couldnt get the idea out of my had that he had really much in common with morphy and that his play is based on his. well i havent studied enought games from morphy, nor am i a good enought player nto judge but i couldnt get that idea out of my head

well of course its based on him but i thought there are some similarities in their style