Doubling pawns.

I don't get it.  Please elaborate.

I am well aware that knights belong on good outposts, and d5 happens to be an excellent one.  I just believe that the rook can make better use of it, and the knight is doing a fine job staying right where it is.  Especially because the isolated doubled pawns can become easy targets for the opposing knight, keeping the white knight on e3 for the time being seems very sensible.  It seems like you're not taking everything into account and making decisions simply by principles alone.

Doubling pawns can cramp a pawn chains ability to flex or go forward.  It can create targets.  It can close sections of the board so pieces cannot switch through that area.  On the other hand, it can open files for rooks.  It can be beneficial as long as the capture is towards the centre, for example certain positions with pawns on e5 and e6 can be very hard to break down, or ones with the h pawn capturing on the g file. Pros and cons, like so much in this lovely game of ours, depending on the exact position and pieces involved that can exploit the weaknesses.

Having said that, true glory is in the tripled pawn.  I rejoice when I can triple someones pawns but I am truly elated in those rare games where I accept tripled pawns myself and go on to win.

Well, it has to do with the fact that black is to move, not white.

Okay, now I'm really confused.  The diagram on the 28th post clearly states that its white to move.  I don't think you are looking at the right diagram.

If you haven't figured it out yet, Yereslov likes to troll - say the most ridiculous things to start an argument. A few days ago he claimed Paul Morphy would be rated 1300 on this website until finally conceding, after 2,000 posts, that he might have been wrong.

I think I now understand what you meant by this post.  I should have taken your warning a bit more seriously.

Any other opinions on the idea of utilizing the d5 square for the white rook?  Going straight for the d5 square seems like it would work because after 1.Rfd1 Rfd8, black can't respond to 2.Rd5 with Ne7 to kick the Rook away since that would hang the pawn on e5.  White can then double up on the d file.  I believe that the rook battery on the d-file is a greater asset than planting the knight on d5.  Can't say it's winning though.

To answer Madhacker's question, the reason to keep the rooks on the board is that the weakness of white's isolated a and c pawns would become more emphasized as more pieces leave the board.  While white's doubled pawns control key squares, they lack support, thus become easy targets for a jumping knight.  It's true that, due to the d5 outpost, white would achieve the better minor piece after the two pairs of rooks are traded off.  However, black's knight can start attacking white's weaknesses right away, after which black has all the initiative and white is paralyzed trying to hold everything together.  White cannot do the same against black because black's weaknesses are not as easy to exploit.  As long as black plays solidly and avoids creating any big weaknesses of his own, I feel that white won't be able to make much progress, much less win.

By keeping the Rooks on the board, defending the weak pawns becomes much easier since the rooks themselves can be used to defend them.  True, it's not ideal, but it would be much easier for white to defend all of its weaknesses when it has more defenders available.  The main issue then becomes preventing the opposing rooks from taking control of the d-file.

Rooks are the winning chances.  As Kens-Mom noted, there just aren't any winning chances for White without them.

White can bring his King to e2 to be ready to answer ...Na5 with Kd3.  The ...Na5 is seriously offside if it cannot capture c4, though, it has nothing else to do there.  Even so, it's still a draw, but White can make Black sweat it out and perhaps make a mistake or two which would open up winning chances. 

Take the Rooks away, it's just a draw.  Knights and Kings are very short range pieces, they can't swing back and forth fast enough to create pressure by threatening both sides of the board.  White's weakened Queenside is defensible and Black has no weaknesses.

Are you a sheep? Do you believe anything anyone tells you?

The truth is that your idea leads to a draw. A dead draw. 

There is no winning idea in this position. 

Ken's_Mom ~ There is nothing wrong with the idea of Rd5, but Black can counter and hold, and there is no way to force him to exchange on d5 (which would be bad for him, although not necessarily losing, it really makes the defense harder and undoubles White's c-pawns). 

Eventually Black will get a Rook to d8, his King to e8, ...g6 and ...h5 to keep White's Knight restricted, ...f6 to defend e5, and be able to sooner or later play ...Ne7 and force the Rook to move, leading to trading them one way or another.

It's just one of those cases where White is slightly better, but not enough to win without help from Black.  I would play it out for White and make Black defend, but I don't see any way to force it.

Open files are most useful if they can be used for an entry point on the 6th, 7th, or 8th ranks to penetrate the opposing position.  More often they end up as just the vehicle to trade the heavy pieces.  Half-open files are more promising for attack, but here the only one is the b-file and Black can easily hold the attacking a4-a5 off.

Another reason Nd5 is the best winning chance, besides the fact it is an ideal square for a Knight, is that in this case it can never be forced to move away as Black doesn't wish to exchange on d5. So it helps avoid the exchange of Rooks, too. But even then, it seems a draw is the rightful outcome.

False, and ridiculous on its face.  Of course one side can have an advantage and it not be objectively enough to force a win, but it may take only a single error by the weaker side to change that.  And of course even the stronger side can go wrong and turn the tide against himself.

There is a huge difference between "drawish" and "dead drawn."  While there is a chance of creating play, the enterprising player keeps trying even though he may be only even - see Carlsen's games at the Tal Memorial, he fought hard in very even endings almost every game, as he usually does.

Estragon, KensMom, Chesspool - I think we all should give Yereslov more respect; I for one am hanging on his every word as he is clearly underrated by at least 1000 points.  How a guru such as this has escaped the chess world's notice is beyond me.  Admittedly, he appears at first glance to be a rabid idiot who actually believes the shallow evaluations he makes but if we probe deeper we might raise ourselves to the point where we can start to understand and follow his reasoning.  Yours humbly, etc,etc.

You're the idiot, troll.

I'm an idiot for making rational answers? 

That's some insult there, buddy.

It's for insulting better players and not realising that an even position =/= draw. Not everyone plays like Houdini.

A draw means an even game. 

It's similar to how we choose the best moves for a mate, rather than botching the whole thing.