Not me.
I have a namesake.
I know Lyudmil Antonov has been working on SF, but I am not aware what precisely he did.
Anyway, ASMFish is better than SF only at very short time controls.
Speed is not that important in modern chess, already.
True, I can confirm that - asmfish reaches 25 ply a bit faster, but later it falls behind. Longer the thinking time, stockfish gets farther.
Another victory by me, over Stockfish 8:
You can verify Stockfish's moves as black, too, if you don't believe me. Run it through your own. I let it think to at least a Depth of 22 for each move.
Also notice that several of white's moves are not engine choices. That's because they are my own (human) moves.
Once I'd won material (rook for a knight), I simply traded down to an endgame, up a pawn. And yes, I realize that I missed the quickest mate. But, still—a win's a win.
Annotations included for move explanations.
At this point, for the fun of discussion, perhaps it's safe to say I'm much stronger than Lyudmil? If he's 3500, then I'm probably 4000, for example.
(But to be completely serious here, as a 2100 player, I'm certainly not stronger than Stockfish. However, I do have the option of take-backs, so . . . This is why such victories are possible. Truthfully, I believe I lost this game over a dozen times, if you count each time I played a move and then found myself suddenly losing . . . before I found a winning line. Either way: point made?)
You MAKE YOURSELF funny.
This is draw, right?
How did you win that???
You played SF at half strength, or even 1/4 strength, as visible from the game, right?
So, SF was somewhere 2300 at most.
And you did take back moves, not only for you, but for SF TOO...
Hilarious. Indeed, a very bad game, in each and every respect.
So, you have made take-backs every second move! And you acknowledge that publicly.
That is your credibility.
I, I never take back moves during competitive games.
Please, DON'T make yourself funnier than that.
There’s solid evidence that you manipulate the conditions, so you can’t even talk anymore.
I caught him. 
No one has caught me yet.
Here one more for you to enjoy, my 25th win over SF for today:
You CAN'T do that, can you?
Wins with handicap are a very different thing to wins without handicap. Still no mean feat, but a lesser achievement.
Another victory by me, over Stockfish 8:
You can verify Stockfish's moves as black, too, if you don't believe me. Run it through your own. I let it think to at least a Depth of 22 for each move.
Also notice that several of white's moves are not engine choices. That's because they are my own (human) moves.
Once I'd won material (rook for a knight), I simply traded down to an endgame, up a pawn. And yes, I realize that I missed the quickest mate. But, still—a win's a win.
Annotations included for move explanations.
At this point, for the fun of discussion, perhaps it's safe to say I'm much stronger than Lyudmil? If he's 3500, then I'm probably 4000, for example.
(But to be completely serious here, as a 2100 player, I'm certainly not stronger than Stockfish. However, I do have the option of take-backs, so . . . This is why such victories are possible. Truthfully, I believe I lost this game over a dozen times, if you count each time I played a move and then found myself suddenly losing . . . before I found a winning line. Either way: point made?)
You MAKE YOURSELF funny.
This is draw, right?
How did you win that???
You played SF at half strength, or even 1/4 strength, as visible from the game, right?
So, SF was somewhere 2300 at most.
And you did take back moves, not only for you, but for SF TOO...
Hilarious. Indeed, a very bad game, in each and every respect.
So, you have made take-backs every second move! And you acknowledge that publicly.
That is your credibility.
I, I never take back moves during competitive games.
Please, DON'T make yourself funnier than that.
There’s solid evidence that you manipulate the conditions, so you can’t even talk anymore.
I caught him.
No one has caught me yet.
Here one more for you to enjoy, my 25th win over SF for today:
You CAN'T do that, can you?
You didn't catch him, his point was that he too could make games with wins against SF.
Lyudmil, ratings are awarded by chess organisations for competitive play. Go forth and compete!
That's all you'll need to do.
On above diagram a7-a5 simply draws, and that will be seen by EVERYONE on this forum, but SF has MISSED it!
HobbyPlayer, please don't post such absurd games any more.
Your <2100 strength clearly transpires.
If you want to learn real chess, the knowledge is here, no take-backs: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chess-Lyudmil-Tsvetkov/dp/1522041400
It is also true that you do not have a legitimate very high rating yourself - self-awarded ones really don't count (your old rating is very respectable, but bears no resemblance to your wacky claims).
You might prefer to have a ratified public match against an engine to demonstrate your skills. chess.com might be up for validating such an impressive show, and this would be tremendous publicity for you. What sort of result could you achieve, under what conditions?
^^^
Just as Elroch says. If chess.com could host one for you, you'd be famous overnight! Your book sales would soar sky high! But until then, you continue to have this everyday.
If you really want your book to be a success, then play some games. Don't give me the excuse that you're working on a book, because that book will also get the same reactions. The tide will change for you if you were to play openly.
Wins with handicap are a very different thing to wins without handicap. Still no mean feat, but a lesser achievement.
I am low on energy now, have lot to do and prefer this funnier way of sparring.
Of course, such wins mean much less, once I even tried beating SF with pawn less, but lost in 30 moves, though in a winning position.
When I get stronger, I might retry that with giving SF some handicap.
Another victory by me, over Stockfish 8:
You can verify Stockfish's moves as black, too, if you don't believe me. Run it through your own. I let it think to at least a Depth of 22 for each move.
Also notice that several of white's moves are not engine choices. That's because they are my own (human) moves.
Once I'd won material (rook for a knight), I simply traded down to an endgame, up a pawn. And yes, I realize that I missed the quickest mate. But, still—a win's a win.
Annotations included for move explanations.
At this point, for the fun of discussion, perhaps it's safe to say I'm much stronger than Lyudmil? If he's 3500, then I'm probably 4000, for example.
(But to be completely serious here, as a 2100 player, I'm certainly not stronger than Stockfish. However, I do have the option of take-backs, so . . . This is why such victories are possible. Truthfully, I believe I lost this game over a dozen times, if you count each time I played a move and then found myself suddenly losing . . . before I found a winning line. Either way: point made?)
You MAKE YOURSELF funny.
This is draw, right?
How did you win that???
You played SF at half strength, or even 1/4 strength, as visible from the game, right?
So, SF was somewhere 2300 at most.
And you did take back moves, not only for you, but for SF TOO...
Hilarious. Indeed, a very bad game, in each and every respect.
So, you have made take-backs every second move! And you acknowledge that publicly.
That is your credibility.
I, I never take back moves during competitive games.
Please, DON'T make yourself funnier than that.
There’s solid evidence that you manipulate the conditions, so you can’t even talk anymore.
I caught him.
No one has caught me yet.
Here one more for you to enjoy, my 25th win over SF for today:
You CAN'T do that, can you?
You didn't catch him, his point was that he too could make games with wins against SF.
Very bad performance then.
That is the point, if you MAKE UP such games, it is EASY to show they have been falsified, as I did.
With my games, there is no such thing, no one can show I have done something similar, as I have not, and that is why no one will find such hilarious positions, where SF backfires.
On above diagram a7-a5 simply draws, and that will be seen by EVERYONE on this forum, but SF has MISSED it!
HobbyPlayer, please don't post such absurd games any more.
Your <2100 strength clearly transpires.
If you want to learn real chess, the knowledge is here, no take-backs: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chess-Lyudmil-Tsvetkov/dp/1522041400
It is also true that you do not have a legitimate very high rating yourself - self-awarded ones really don't count (your old rating is very respectable, but bears no resemblance to your wacky claims).
You might prefer to have a ratified public match against an engine to demonstrate your skills. chess.com might be up for validating such an impressive show, and this would be tremendous publicity for you. What sort of result could you achieve, under what conditions?
^^^
Just as Elroch says. If chess.com could host one for you, you'd be famous overnight! Your book sales would soar sky high! But until then, you continue to have this everyday.
If you really want your book to be a success, then play some games. Don't give me the excuse that you're working on a book, because that book will also get the same reactions. The tide will change for you if you were to play openly.
Nothing will change for me, really.
I will perform at around 2500 or so, 2500 or 2200, what is the difference?
The interest will not soar dramatically; if I performed at 3500, then maybe, but I need special conditions for that, quiet surroundings, which are hard to get, especially nowadays.
Even if I do that, then you will say, 'Hey, this is just an online rating, he needs to play OTB to prove', won't you?
We know each other, you want to put on me the burden for something you should do yourself: try to investigate my book. I have walked my part of the road, now it is yours.
I think online play is entirely valid (and in some ways superior) to OTB play, but needs to be properly authenticated, for certain reasons.
What am I supposed to glean from that article?
On above diagram a7-a5 simply draws, and that will be seen by EVERYONE on this forum, but SF has MISSED it!
HobbyPlayer, please don't post such absurd games any more.
Your <2100 strength clearly transpires.
If you want to learn real chess, the knowledge is here, no take-backs: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chess-Lyudmil-Tsvetkov/dp/1522041400
It is also true that you do not have a legitimate very high rating yourself - self-awarded ones really don't count (your old rating is very respectable, but bears no resemblance to your wacky claims).
You might prefer to have a ratified public match against an engine to demonstrate your skills. chess.com might be up for validating such an impressive show, and this would be tremendous publicity for you. What sort of result could you achieve, under what conditions?
^^^
Just as Elroch says. If chess.com could host one for you, you'd be famous overnight! Your book sales would soar sky high! But until then, you continue to have this everyday.
If you really want your book to be a success, then play some games. Don't give me the excuse that you're working on a book, because that book will also get the same reactions. The tide will change for you if you were to play openly.
We know each other, you want to put on me the burden for something you should do yourself: try to investigate my book. I have walked my part of the road, now it is yours.
That is where you are failing. I understand that you've put in a lot of work to write your book, but your customers won't "walk their part of the road" before buying your book. That's like asking Google to hire you when you don't have a proper education!
On above diagram a7-a5 simply draws, and that will be seen by EVERYONE on this forum, but SF has MISSED it!
HobbyPlayer, please don't post such absurd games any more.
Your <2100 strength clearly transpires.
If you want to learn real chess, the knowledge is here, no take-backs: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chess-Lyudmil-Tsvetkov/dp/1522041400
It is also true that you do not have a legitimate very high rating yourself - self-awarded ones really don't count (your old rating is very respectable, but bears no resemblance to your wacky claims).
You might prefer to have a ratified public match against an engine to demonstrate your skills. chess.com might be up for validating such an impressive show, and this would be tremendous publicity for you. What sort of result could you achieve, under what conditions?
^^^
Just as Elroch says. If chess.com could host one for you, you'd be famous overnight! Your book sales would soar sky high! But until then, you continue to have this everyday.
If you really want your book to be a success, then play some games. Don't give me the excuse that you're working on a book, because that book will also get the same reactions. The tide will change for you if you were to play openly.
We know each other, you want to put on me the burden for something you should do yourself: try to investigate my book. I have walked my part of the road, now it is yours.
That is where you are failing. I understand that you've put in a lot of work to write your book, but your customers won't "walk their part of the road" before buying your book. That's like asking Google to hire you when you don't have a proper education!
I will never ask Google to hire me.
Check again IM Welling's review: https://www.chess.com/blog/Swordfish55/review-the-secret-of-chess
When strong tilted players support your work, your credentials are boosted, don't you think?
Concerning my education, oh, you should learn for 200 years to attain that.
On above diagram a7-a5 simply draws, and that will be seen by EVERYONE on this forum, but SF has MISSED it!
HobbyPlayer, please don't post such absurd games any more.
Your <2100 strength clearly transpires.
If you want to learn real chess, the knowledge is here, no take-backs: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chess-Lyudmil-Tsvetkov/dp/1522041400
It is also true that you do not have a legitimate very high rating yourself - self-awarded ones really don't count (your old rating is very respectable, but bears no resemblance to your wacky claims).
You might prefer to have a ratified public match against an engine to demonstrate your skills. chess.com might be up for validating such an impressive show, and this would be tremendous publicity for you. What sort of result could you achieve, under what conditions?
^^^
Just as Elroch says. If chess.com could host one for you, you'd be famous overnight! Your book sales would soar sky high! But until then, you continue to have this everyday.
If you really want your book to be a success, then play some games. Don't give me the excuse that you're working on a book, because that book will also get the same reactions. The tide will change for you if you were to play openly.
We know each other, you want to put on me the burden for something you should do yourself: try to investigate my book. I have walked my part of the road, now it is yours.
That is where you are failing. I understand that you've put in a lot of work to write your book, but your customers won't "walk their part of the road" before buying your book. That's like asking Google to hire you when you don't have a proper education!
I will never ask Google to hire me.
Check again IM Welling's review: https://www.chess.com/blog/Swordfish55/review-the-secret-of-chess
When strong tilted players support your work, your credentials are boosted, don't you think? That's true, but it's still not good enough. Begging others for reviews won't help prove much about your book, Mr.Tsvetkov.
Concerning my education, oh, you should learn for 200 years to attain that.
That was an example. Google would never hire you!
On above diagram a7-a5 simply draws, and that will be seen by EVERYONE on this forum, but SF has MISSED it!
HobbyPlayer, please don't post such absurd games any more.
Your <2100 strength clearly transpires.
If you want to learn real chess, the knowledge is here, no take-backs: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chess-Lyudmil-Tsvetkov/dp/1522041400
It is also true that you do not have a legitimate very high rating yourself - self-awarded ones really don't count (your old rating is very respectable, but bears no resemblance to your wacky claims).
You might prefer to have a ratified public match against an engine to demonstrate your skills. chess.com might be up for validating such an impressive show, and this would be tremendous publicity for you. What sort of result could you achieve, under what conditions?
^^^
Just as Elroch says. If chess.com could host one for you, you'd be famous overnight! Your book sales would soar sky high! But until then, you continue to have this everyday.
If you really want your book to be a success, then play some games. Don't give me the excuse that you're working on a book, because that book will also get the same reactions. The tide will change for you if you were to play openly.
We know each other, you want to put on me the burden for something you should do yourself: try to investigate my book. I have walked my part of the road, now it is yours.
That is where you are failing. I understand that you've put in a lot of work to write your book, but your customers won't "walk their part of the road" before buying your book. That's like asking Google to hire you when you don't have a proper education!
I will never ask Google to hire me.
Check again IM Welling's review: https://www.chess.com/blog/Swordfish55/review-the-secret-of-chess
When strong tilted players support your work, your credentials are boosted, don't you think? That's true, but it's still not good enough. Begging others for reviews won't help prove much about your book, Mr.Tsvetkov.
Concerning my education, oh, you should learn for 200 years to attain that.
That was an example. Google would never hire you!
You would think he would have learned some elementary logic in all that time...
On above diagram a7-a5 simply draws, and that will be seen by EVERYONE on this forum, but SF has MISSED it!
HobbyPlayer, please don't post such absurd games any more.
Your <2100 strength clearly transpires.
If you want to learn real chess, the knowledge is here, no take-backs: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chess-Lyudmil-Tsvetkov/dp/1522041400
It is also true that you do not have a legitimate very high rating yourself - self-awarded ones really don't count (your old rating is very respectable, but bears no resemblance to your wacky claims).
You might prefer to have a ratified public match against an engine to demonstrate your skills. chess.com might be up for validating such an impressive show, and this would be tremendous publicity for you. What sort of result could you achieve, under what conditions?
^^^
Just as Elroch says. If chess.com could host one for you, you'd be famous overnight! Your book sales would soar sky high! But until then, you continue to have this everyday.
If you really want your book to be a success, then play some games. Don't give me the excuse that you're working on a book, because that book will also get the same reactions. The tide will change for you if you were to play openly.
We know each other, you want to put on me the burden for something you should do yourself: try to investigate my book. I have walked my part of the road, now it is yours.
That is where you are failing. I understand that you've put in a lot of work to write your book, but your customers won't "walk their part of the road" before buying your book. That's like asking Google to hire you when you don't have a proper education!
I will never ask Google to hire me.
Check again IM Welling's review: https://www.chess.com/blog/Swordfish55/review-the-secret-of-chess
When strong tilted players support your work, your credentials are boosted, don't you think? That's true, but it's still not good enough. Begging others for reviews won't help prove much about your book, Mr.Tsvetkov.
Concerning my education, oh, you should learn for 200 years to attain that.
That was an example. Google would never hire you!
I don't beg anyone to hire me.
They should beg to hire me.
Authors don't beg.
And how to enjoy good chess.
And how to enjoy good chess.
You should learn some: you haven’t made one good argument in this whole thread. Your game backs this up: the engine evals are clearly fake or include a ridiculous amount of contempt which completely breaks the engine.
Another victory by me, over Stockfish 8:
You can verify Stockfish's moves as black, too, if you don't believe me. Run it through your own. I let it think to at least a Depth of 22 for each move.
Also notice that several of white's moves are not engine choices. That's because they are my own (human) moves.
Once I'd won material (rook for a knight), I simply traded down to an endgame, up a pawn. And yes, I realize that I missed the quickest mate. But, still—a win's a win.
Annotations included for move explanations.
At this point, for the fun of discussion, perhaps it's safe to say I'm much stronger than Lyudmil? If he's 3500, then I'm probably 4000, for example.
(But to be completely serious here, as a 2100 player, I'm certainly not stronger than Stockfish. However, I do have the option of take-backs, so . . . This is why such victories are possible. Truthfully, I believe I lost this game over a dozen times, if you count each time I played a move and then found myself suddenly losing . . . before I found a winning line. Either way: point made?)
You MAKE YOURSELF funny.
This is draw, right?
How did you win that???
You played SF at half strength, or even 1/4 strength, as visible from the game, right?
So, SF was somewhere 2300 at most.
And you did take back moves, not only for you, but for SF TOO...
Hilarious. Indeed, a very bad game, in each and every respect.
So, you have made take-backs every second move! And you acknowledge that publicly.
That is your credibility.
I, I never take back moves during competitive games.
Please, DON'T make yourself funnier than that.
There’s solid evidence that you manipulate the conditions, so you can’t even talk anymore.