Were Carlsen, Fischer, And Capablanca Wrong?

Some chess games played by legendary players featured such impressive new concepts that they instantly became iconic. As time passed, these concepts turned into chess axioms. According to Wikipedia, "In classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established that it is accepted without controversy or question." This is exactly what has happened to chess axioms. Let's take a look at the following game, which features one of the most famous moves from GM Bobby Fischer.

GM Garry Kasparov's comment, taken from his book My Great Predecessors, explains the reason why Fischer traded his beautiful knight on c5 for a "bad" bishop on d7. He also correctly points out that, at that time, trades like this were very unusual. Thanks to Fischer's game, this concept became common knowledge.

To be honest, since the first time I saw this game in my childhood, the whole idea of trading a beautiful knight for a "bad" bishop looked very unnatural to me and I was never able to use it in my games. Moreover, when I showed this game to my students I always gave a disclaimer that if, in my own game, I had the same exact position as the Fischer-Petrosian game, then, of course, I would play Nxd7 because I know that this is what I am supposed to play in this position. But if I had a different position, very similar but different, I would never make such a trade! 

Recently, by accident, I discovered an excerpt from a book by GM Viacheslav Dydyshko, Intellectual Chess, and couldn't believe my eyes. He analyzed the abovementioned game and gave Fischer's move 22. Nxd7 "?!", which means a dubious move! After looking at his analysis (well, it was definitely done with the significant help of an engine) I had a huge sense of relief: my childhood chess trauma was gone because the unnatural move Nxd7 was indeed not so good. Judge for yourself. First of all, Black could seriously activate his pieces:

In all these variations provided by Dydyshko, the passed d4 pawn, together with a knight, create a bunch of pesky threats. Black wouldn't be able to activate his pieces if Fischer didn't trade his beautiful knight on c5. Moreover, instead of the dubious trade, White had a clear-cut way to convert his advantage, as shown by Dydyshko:

After this revelation, I decided to revisit another classical game that bothered me from my childhood for exactly the same reason as the Fischer-Petrosian game. 

Notice that in his annotations, Aaron Nimzowitsch doesn't even comment on the weird-looking move 23...Nxd3, and neither did Jose Raul Capablanca himself in his book My Chess Career. Maybe this move was so natural for these two chess giants that they thought it didn't deserve any explanation, but for me, it always looked incredibly ugly. Now, inspired by Dydyshko's research, I turned an engine on, and sure enough, it hates Capablanca's move.

And here is the latest game of GM Magnus Carlsen, where he followed the footsteps of his great predecessors and traded his beautiful knight on c4 for an ugly bishop on e3:

The point of this article is not to criticize Carlsen, Fischer, or Capablanca (who are probably the biggest pure chess geniuses ever)—it is totally different. If a chess move or a concept looks fishy to you or you just don't understand it, don't accept it as an axiom and believe that if a World Champion played it then it must be good. These days, you have a very trustworthy friend who is incredibly strong at chess and just waiting for your call for help. Just push that little button that looks like a magnifying glass and let the engine show you the way!