Tolerating what appears to be a Dangerous Check

Weak pawns frequently control important squares. See the commentary of D. Naroditsky in the seminal game of pawn health versus piece mobility(Carlson/Nakamura) where the 5 time US champion possessed an uncompromised pawn structure and two horses versus the tattered pawns and Bishop Pair of the World Champion. Great article about it in the United States periodical Chess Life.

Also master Quora commentator Tom Wilkins writes about Naroditsky's winning online blitz record against King Magnus.

Ultrarunner, hailing from Denmark, plays boring but winning chess at ICC with his pet line the King's Indian Attack. In the diagrammed position, White "threatens" Queen to d8 check. This is an instance of playing safe or conservatively. OTB players would be inclined to play the safe defensive move Qe7. However White's impotent prelate at f3 would make a postal player scratch his whiskers and consider the greedy Queen captures pawn at b3 not fearing the "meaningless check" since the White light squared  Bishop is poorly placed not being able to aid in attacking what appears to be a vulnerable Black Monarch!!

A dude at ChessFox.com can relate to all this citing Philidor's claim that pawns are the soul of chess. I find it sooo odd that the owner of ChessFox never identifies themselves, but want you to buy chess tutorials from them. Maybe a lower rate player who thinks it would hurt his bottom line or sales?