bulgari blog

The level of sophistication of playing a quiet move can sometimes be justified in a spectacular way
Have a look at this Tal game I have done some analysis on: Let's look at what DID NOT HAPPEN! - If black had taken the rook on a1 :

At move 17 if Black had taken on a1, then there is a silent "killer move" Qf6 which carries the threat of Bh6 which is actually fairly unstoppable. The best that black can hope for is Qxa2 and Qa5+ but with careful King moves, the threat of mating on g7 is unstoppable

Special consideration here for tacticians

"Check all checks, captures and major threats e.g. threat of mate in 1 or 2"

is my favorite bit of advice for team members. Of course a lot of the time you just want to be aware of forcing moves, and not actually play them, because they might give the opponent some subtle advantages they did not previously have.

This particular Tal game example acts to qualify the "threat of mate in 1" - when can the "threat of a threat of mate in 1" be justified. This "threat of the threat" in other words. Can the silent version really be more effective than the more direct version of events with the immediate Bh6? Yes, because Bh6 gives Black literally the "legal move" of f6. The quiet Qf6 on the other hand shuts down that legal move!

The fear of using an extra level of sophistication is giving the opponent extra options. The fear of not playing forceful moves, in general, is letting the opponent dictate events and find amazing resources.

But sometimes it is the quiet moves that actually overall shut down options in advance making the implementation better. In this case, the silent move Qf6 shuts down the f6 resource which would have been available if Bh6 had been played immediately.

So sometimes lookout for the "silent but killer moves" - if they add value such as locking down a pawn - that is the same in effect as pinning that pawn! The silent move Qf6 in effect gives us access to the "legal move" side of chess in our favor making the move f6 illegal :)