Very complicated chess question. I'm stunned.

So I've been reading a book by Boris Gulko and Joel R Sneed (Boris was one of the best players in the world for his time playing against Tal, Karpov, Petrosian and has a positive record against Kasparov) and I've really been enjoy the book on strategy.

I feel I can get to grip with his explanations however there is a recurring rule which he's mentioned twice now and I can't get my head around it which is: "when your position is worse, it is generally a bad idea to play actively, it only makes matters worse". (Boris Gulkos peak ratings was 2644 in the year 2000).

I'm completely dazzled by this statement, can anyone please explain this to me? I've always been under the impression you have to play actively phrases such as "active defence" are very common and players often lose because they're too "passive". I've analysed games in which Fischer has played and Keres in which they both start losing so they defence actively and aggressively.

This goes against everything I've been told.

I'm roughly 1770 FIDE but improving, probably a bit underrated. I need to find an answer to this, it's so distracting not knowing!

"when your position is worse, it is generally a bad idea to play actively, it only makes matters worse".

What i would think he is saying here, is that the move played in the game helps white achieve piece activity, and threats.  Where as his move recommendation while "passive" does more for black in the long run.

What I can tell you is that Komodo 12.2.2 at depth 30 thinks Nxe4 is the correct move. It scores that move as advantage for white at 1.35. Black is in some difficulty here regardless.

At depth 32, Komodo prefers Bf5 at 1.39 for white. Nxe4 rates as 3rd best at 1.49.

His preferred Ne8 is not in the top 4 moves.

I'm not surprised but I'm not interested in computer evaluations, it about learning the right ideas to find strong moves. Computers and humans process very differently. 

@blitzbreedYT - suit yourself. I am very much aware of the limitations of computer engines. However, I will say this is the kind of position that computers tend to evaluate well. Furthermore, the continuations aren't obtuse and hard to find.

Bottom line here, is that white in all probability had a strategically won position, and black went down as expected. To put it another way, this isn't a great example.

@IMBacon @JustJackInIt

I see where you're coming from but it's very difficult to get my head around this. I can remember so many games where I tried to defend by remaining solid and playing "defensive moves" rather than being activate and I can also remember winning or saving a lot of games by playing active when losing so it's really difficult for me to understand this...

I've been reading how to reassess your chess by Jeremy Silman and he points out a number of times when active play was required, even sacrificing a pawn or two to get activity, I've read my 60 memorable games by bobby fischer and there was a game in there between fischer and keres (fischer won) keres defended actively but it worked however he missed drawing chances in time pressure.

It just feels so unnatural to try and accept this, I think I'm understanding it wrong...

There's an old saying to the effect that "tactics flow from a superior position". So perhaps what Gulko is saying is that it is usually a mistake to go into tactics when your position is worse.

He might have had a point here (although the longer I run the engine, the more certain I am that this is a bad example of what he is trying to show).

However, assuming he is right about what he is trying to communicate, this appears to be a case where a GM doesn't do a good job of communicating his point to lower rated players.

And you are right that this flies in the face of what I have read and heard elsewhere. I am sure it is possible to overextend yourself and make your position worse than it already was. And if that is his point, I can buy it. But at the end of the day, you also want to play moves that give you practical chances.

@blueemu @madratter7 

Maybe you're right, I just don't know. I think I'll bring my book to a match that will probably have a few GMs, I'll ask them and post back here what their responses are.

Probably at his level he’s good enough to know when a position should just be ‘held’ and to not disturb the course of play, even if it means suffering. 

For us mere mortals there probably is more to be said for the ‘hustle’ even if it’s not always the objective ‘best’., and we maybe lack the skills to just sit on a position a la Kramnik or Karpov. 

Thats my take on it anyway.

This is an example of why he is a GM and we arent :-)  But as others have noted, the move in the game seems to be the engines top choice.  But is it the best move?  I would rather have some like Guko explain something, than just blindly playing an engine move.

Could be true but I wouldn't want to just accept that and move on, I'll ask around and see what people think 

I think the answer you’ll get most is it depends on the position but look forward to you reporting back :-)

Some of this is just a linguistic failing.

Passivity usually references the potential of a position. A passive position doesn't only mean passivity now, but it promises more to come in the future. A good example would be an early middlegame position that has no possibility of a future pawn break.

Activity, as shown in the game, is different. There active play means cashing in your positional trumps for a more tangible advantage (like material or checkmate). The advice is basically saying if you don't have enough positional value, then you shouldn't try to cash it in yet.

Defensive, as 16...Ne8, or waiting moves, do not necessarily make the position passive. In other words they don't eliminate the potential for active play, the player is just waiting for a better time to cash in the position's value.

---

Having said that, at a lower level it's good advice to error on the side of activity. Sometimes we misjudge when temporary defensive moves kill the future potential of the position as well. Also (at least at lower levels) it tends to take more skill (or at least precision) to punish an opponent who errors on the side of activity.

so true. Desperado and hack attacks have insane success rates...at least at the non-pro chess level. so that saying is practically wrong.

Maybe he used2 play scared ?....which is usually why players don't get better.

The thing is Boris Gulko says what you 'should' do without saying 'why', I think it's this that is causing a lot of confusion...

...maybe he didn't even know 'cuz it was something he read.

The lesson here really is about understanding the value of the 'ground' or bottom position.

Pretty simple really...check out MMA fights. Ground to safety, active when escaping. You'll also probably see someone active on the ground(or before)....and just not be squeamish when you see what happens to that idiocy.

Yes, you must find the most quiet moves. That's what it means; active - moving, bubbling, and quaking. Quiet - the stuff you can't see coming, the impossible, the silent drop dead out of thin air. That's the only thing that can save a worse position, anyway.